50 User Groups -

The huge boneheaded mistake LinkedIn is making is HOW they are implementing the new cap on the number of groups that a user can join.

If a user does not get the message in time to go into their account and delete groups to get down below 50, LinkedIn will unilaterally go into their account and delete all of their most recently joined groups (translation: the ones that they have the most current interest in!) to push them below 50.

Adam - if, as you claim, "there are a very small number of people outside of this limit" - then why not simply allow those "small number of people" to stay in all of the groups that THEY CHOSE TO BE IN until such time as THEY choose to delete some?

If someone is in 60 groups now, why are you going into their account and unilaterally deleting their 10 most recently joined groups?

Why not let that user keep all 60, but, when they go to add another group, they are prompted to get below the 50 limit before doing so?

Your users worked hard in discovering and joining various groups - and now you are simply going to unilaterally roll that all back?

That shows such little respect for the people who use your service that you really ought to rethink the implementation of this change.

And for those coming in late, below is the email notice in question (which can easily be missed in the other stream of LinkedIn account notices, invites, etc).

The stuff in bold is my emphasis - LinkedIn instead just buried it in their email:

From: LinkedIn Team <noreply@linkedin.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 4, 2008
Subject: Changes to LinkedIn Groups

As an active member of LinkedIn Groups, we wanted to let you know about some changes we're putting in place in the coming weeks.

We are in the process of adding new functionality to enhance the esxperience of Groups, including the recent release of a searchable directory. We are also working with our development teams to bring new tools and widgets to this collaborative space throughout the rest of 2008.

We are also at this time making some changes to the user-created groups we host. These changes include adding a limit to the number of user-created groups any LinkedIn member may be part of at one time. Currently we are setting that limit at membership in 50 (fifty) user-created groups.

Please take the time before this limit goes into place on August 14, 2008, to choose which groups you would like to maintain. To remove yourself from a group, go to the My Groups page and click the word "Settings" next to the group you wish to leave. At the bottom of the settings page click the text "Leave this group."

We would appreciate it if you would please take this action within the next 10 days. If you would prefer, after 30 days we will automatically keep the first 50 groups that you joined and remove the rest.

If you would like assistance removing yourself from groups, or if you have any other questions, please contact us at http://linkedin.custhelp.com or groups@linkedin.com.

We apologize for the inconvenience this may cause you, but we hope you will continue to find value in LinkedIn and especially enjoy the new functionality of LinkedIn Groups that is coming soon.

Regards,
The LinkedIn team

Though like "LinkedOut" I'm no longer a Linkedin member, I still work with a lot of people who still are - people who still have high hopes of using Linkedin to do business better. Based upon their conversations with me, many of my former Linkedin connections would agree with the points "Linkedout" is asking here on GetSatisfaction.com. Many of these members still like Linkedin as a service but do not like the way Linkedin is making them *FEEL*.

No mater how financially successful Linkedin is - if too many people start to think that it feels bad to use Linkedin's services, eventually the end users bad feelings could start to affect Linkedin's bottom line. It may not appear that that's at all possible at this time but, it wouldn't surprise me if/when it happens.

To me, some of Linkedin's biggest recent problems has to do with perception.

Linkedin has a certain perception of its user population(s). Those perceptions lead to decisions which affect *multiple* populations - not just the intended ones. That, in turn, leads to users changing their perception of the value they get from Linkedin. It's not about software, it's about perception.

As odd as it may seem: people turn to services like Linkedin because they want to feel better than they did PRIOR to using the service. If Linkedin is not going to help them to feel better about getting and conducting business via the Linkedin platform then what's the point of using Linkedin services? No matter how carefully, how scientifically a system is architected, the bottom line is that people still need to feel good about using it. A growing number of people I know aren't feeling that way about Linkedin's changes right now....Think about it.

To the specific issue at hand, "LinkedOut" asks a very good question when he asks: "Adam - if, as you claim, "there are a very small number of people outside of this limit" - then why not simply allow those "small number of people" to stay in all of the groups that THEY CHOSE TO BE IN until such time as THEY choose to delete some?"

Seems like a fair question to me...

Jay,

Hello. The idea of "improving" groups seems feasible but because it is a very useful tool but... it is an abuse the way that LI wants to prevent "abusive users" using the tool.

Let me try to clarify a few things:

- As I mentioned earlier, unfortunately, grandfathering the existing users with too many groups isn't an option, since that would grandfather in a significant amount of abuse. There are people who have joined dozens and dozens of college alumni groups, for example, where they don't belong.

- As we roll out new functionality to the groups platform, the implications of having these abusers in groups will become more significant for the other members.

- As we roll out more functionality to groups, there will likely be growing user experience implications to be tied to such a large number of groups. We're doing our best to try and head off some of those issues ahead of time.

Once again, let me just state that I know that this type of limit is constraining for a small number of people. If at all possible, we'll work to increase this limit in the future.

Managing and improving a web-based product used by millions of people is always an exercise in trade-offs. In this case, we have tried to put our effort into a platform that will be far more useful to our members, even though it has added some limits that weren't necessary before.

We appreciate your comments, and obviously we'll be watching this closely. Groups is one of the things we're very focused on enhancing for both the near and long term.

Hope this helps,
Adam

Hi Jay,

I have been writing a number of emails to LinkedIn over the last couple of days, and just found out about this forum. Therefore, several of my comments and requests have been published on other forums, even LinkedIn Q&A, to which my answer unfortunately got selected as best answer. At first, I wasn't too happy about this, but as I read here and in many other forums and 1-on-1 chats I had in the past couple of days, it is clear that our perception of using LinkedIn may turn to the negative sector. It is time for showing some corrective action by LinkedIn. It is never a shame to admit a mistake, as long as you openly make the correction and move on. In this respect I want to voice out - as do many others - how the LinkedIn community feels about this issue and I sense it my duty to assist the members in return for all what I have been able to enjoy in the past couple of years.

Both LinkedOut (I'm not very sure), but surely Vincent who have made LinkedIn what it is today, and as he says it is not about the technology (not alone) but about perception and feeling good in using the technology, that is important for the user but in the long run, either direction will affect the success and future of LinkedIn. Loosing people like Vincent at the core of LinkedIn till recently, is like loosing your heart: one can't function, there is no soul, no encouragement as Vincent has become famous for.

Anyway here is my last request I had sent to LinkedIn today, in case it didnot reach the right persons incharge.

Dear LinkedIn Management and LinkedIn Groups Management,

It is not with total proud that I was chosen best answer relative to the chaos created relative to the limitation set by LinkedIn for Group membership. My apologies, it has never been my intend to create something like this out of self interest, rather out of necessity to ensure professional networking tools.

Considering my previous email and the below email, which I have posted on a number forums to ensure that the LinkedIn community has a correct impression of my intentions, I am writing to you to request for a fair favour:

The limitation set for max membership to 50 Groups is not a bad thing within the overall perspective of good professional networking and therefore I actually support this decision now. So lets move forward on this as someone made it very clear.

However, I have a serious issue with the approach LinkedIn had taken in announcing the deadline – So not the what is questioned but the HOW ! Together with the majority of the LinkedIn community, we like to request LinkedIn management to revise the current set deadline of August 14 to end of September, for amongst the following reasons:
- Selecting the ones that I relative to one’s profile is not a child’s game but is serious professional consideration and judgement
- It is a vacation period in many parts of the world and people should be given amble time to make corrections
- People have a job to do and cannot suddenly prioritize a LinkedIn problem to be resolved at such a short notice
- LinkedIn servers seem to struggle with the number of corrections currently being made to group memberships, also knowing that the functionality offered is not good at all and cumbersome for many of us

As a professional LinkedIn member, I and we would all appreciate your corrective action and announcement accordingly in this matter. Much appreciated.

Best regards,
Joris Claeys
Managing Director
ACCELERATE Global Supply Chain Solutions

CEO & Founding Partner
The MARKETING VILLAGETM Your world Our village! ©

Adam:

It seems to me that the abuse problem is really more a matter of a problem of the group organizers being able to verify the credentials of the applicants. The fact that someone joins dozens of alumni groups isn't really a LinkedIn problem -- it's a problem with the organizers of the alumni groups. Why did they allow those people in?

It's certainly possible to legitimately have more than 50 "sub-networks" with which you're affiliated. If you just had every school, every former employer, a few professional associations and a few areas of common interest, you're at that number pretty easily.

If the groups are truly based on some sort of real-world association, then group organizers should easily be able to verify the applicant's credentials, and it's not a LinkedIn problem. If it's a group that's open to whoever self-declares that they want to associate with the group, then that's really the group organizer's decision, NOT LinkedIn's.

So group organizers who are concerned about the consequences of those abusers should verify membership. Organizers of more open groups should be made aware of the potential consequences. But the bottom line is -- it's up to the group organizers to make that decision, NOT LinkedIn.

Aditional problem is that to step out of groups, the server seems to be over its capacity. If you click on Settings Explorer freezes.

For me it is a pity, groups are en efficient way to expand my network. If Linkedin can not maintain unlimited groups per user, I will not argue.
If it is because of patronizing it really does not make sense in a professional network where we assume that 99,99 % of the users are bona fide.

I am a paying member, by the way so I expect a discount: less service = less costs.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/3/928/782

Adam,

Let me first of all state that this issue and its outcome has absolutely zero impact on my life and work. My LinkedIn profile lists me as belonging to a grand total of three (3) groups. If that number went down to zero (0), nothing of substance would change.

However, I am concerned by the MANNER in which LinkedIn has chosen to address the issue. If the term "heavy-handed" keeps recurring in many of these posts, please consider that there may be a valid reason for that particular choice of words that goes way beyond mere whining and "victimhood."

In my opinion, there is something very simple you could do that would go a long way toward turning around negative attitudes being expressed toward LinkedIn. When you respond to a professional who has clearly taken the time to think through a suggestion or a complaint, please let your response reflect similar thoughtfulness. In particular, when it is simply not possible to change course, please indicate precisely HOW the condition being discussed impacts (or would impact) LinkedIn:

"The number of groups to which a person belongs must be limited because we are going to implement a process in which we dynamically test every member of every group for potential cross-linking and we calculate that the resulting load would sink our servers by a factor of 1000 without the proposed limitation."

"People claiming membership in groups to which they have no right of membership expose LinkedIn to potential legal liability."

"We cannot grandfather even a small number of current abusers -- [whatever that means] -- because we are concerned that once word gets out abuse will spread."

etc.

Obviously those are not your answers, but are merely intended to illustrate the kind of non-defensive specificity that could turn adversaries into potential allies.

Good luck!

Please help - Anyone????

Since LinkedIn is limiting the number of User-Created groups to 50 per profile. I received the email from LI customer service saying I belong to 62 groups. How can I determine if a group I belong to is "User-Created" or LinkedIn (admin?) Created?

Jeff

The real question you have to ask is even if you belong to ALL LinkedIn, not User created groups will your account still be penalized.

ScottAllen - Perfectly put. Thank you.

Adam Nash - Please answer Scott's excellent points.

Why exactly cannot this be handled by the moderators/owners of the groups on an individual case-by-case basis instead of you unilaterally and arbitrarily going into user accounts and deleting their groups 'for them"?

Also, your "solution" does not even address the problem you described as a rationale for doing this - if "people who have joined dozens and dozens of college alumni groups, for example, where they don't belong" did so as part of the first 50 groups that they joined, they would STILL be part of those groups after you hacked off the others.

If there are people "abusing" the groups system, a much more simple, elegant, and effective way of handling this would be to simply flag these users to the list moderators/owners of the groups that these "abusers" belong to so that the list owner/moderators can easily review whether or not that person should be removed on an individual case-by-case basis.

To do otherwise is simply YOU abusing your users and list moderators/owners who have put much time and effort into discovering, joining, and building groups on your system.

Also a reminder - I am not arguing about your right to restrict the number of groups that a user can join - I am instead trying to point out that HOW you are handling the transition is so egregiously boneheaded and wrong that I am attempting to give LinkedIn the gift of this knowledge so that you can choose a different and better path that accomplishes your goals while still respecting all of the hard work of your users and group moderators/owners.

Hi again,

I feel like my last comment went into some detail about the variety of reasons for the limit being in place. Unfortunately, I'm limited at this time in what I can disclose about upcoming features, so I'm not sure how much more I can add to this topic at this point.

Let me just say that if the change in policy around the number of Groups seems abrupt and/or incomprehensible, I apologize. We really tried to balance the needs of all of our users with the realities of cost, time & technology.

In this case, all of the above converged to make the new group limit the simplest change to balance the constraints above.

Paul, I'm sorry if my previous answer didn't reach the level of detail that you'd recommend, but I'm a bit taken aback by the assertion that I'm not putting thought & effort into these responses. GetSatisfaction is not an official customer service channel, and employees like myself who take the time to answer questions here are doing it because they believe passionately in helping our customers. BTW You are the only person so far on this topic to use the phrase "heavy-handed".

Scott, I do think that in the long term we can implement systems to help group moderators solve this issue. This is part of the reason why I believe we'll be able to increase this limit over time. In the near term, the limits of technology, user experience, and time play a factor in this change. As I stated above, this change affects less than 0.1% of group members.

Adam

Adam -- Glad to know it's heading in that direction (re: putting more control in the hands of group organizers).

I do appreciate the fact that you're here. It's definitely better than nothing, which is pretty much what we've had up 'til now.

That said, my read is that the LinkedIn employees are replying to things here largely because this is a widely-viewed public forum and it would be seriously detrimental to be silent here.

LinkedIn has certainly been getting this same kind of input you're getting here from other channels like MyLinkedInPowerForum, LinkedInnovators, my blog and others, as well as direct input from concerned users. Once Konstantin left, there was a brief attempt to continue some participation in MLPF when Mario and April first came on board, but at some point, the powers-that-be at LinkedIn decided to marginalize those channels rather than embrace them. There was also talk of creating some kind of forum for user input, particularly from those of us who have evangelized LinkedIn, trained on it, and who deeply understand how it works. That never happened. In fact, when it came to light that I was planning to organize some users and offer some *private* feedback to LinkedIn about its poor handling of customer service, customer evangelism, etc., I was practically disowned.

And let's face it -- the LinkedIn blog, while I think it has improved tremendously and provides some really valuable content, is hardly a forum for any criticism of LinkedIn. The comments are heavily moderated, and I've certainly never seen any posts address any of the widespread criticism LinkedIn has received on various issues. You're not being very transparent, which I find sadly ironic for a social software company.

People are posting on GetSatisfaction because they (we) haven't gotten satisfaction via the other channels that LinkedIn has previously offered, and because LinkedIn has refused to participate in those we have created ourselves. Speaking as someone who has followed LinkedIn for so long, and who has wanted to help and support but been turned away, the message just rings very hollow.

Adam, I think you may have been shielded from much of this previously. I think you'd be shocked if you knew some of the details of how things have been handled by some of your colleagues.

I haven't done as some others have and removed my LinkedIn membership, because in spite of all the poor choices LinkedIn has made and the treatment I have received personally, I still find it an invaluable business tool, and I still garner some hope that things will change. In the meantime, my evangelism of LinkedIn is always qualified as my "love-hate" relationship with LinkedIn. That's really unfortunate.

If you really want to fix it, do something to truly embrace input from your *real* evangelists and power users -- the ones who have actually helped grow LinkedIn to 30 million members -- not the A-list celebrities who do one Q&A event or blog post. And frankly, it should start with an apology for the way LinkedIn has treated us the past couple of years.

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to post a final note to this topic. I've discussed the
issues presented here and elsewhere with the team responsible for
LinkedIn Groups, and I have some good news to report. As of next week, we
will be limiting the number of groups you can join to 50, and members
with more than 50 groups may not see them appear on all screens on the
site. However, we will be extending the time for members who
currently belong to more that 50 groups. to decide which groups to
keep until September.

We will be sending out an additional email with more detail in
the next week or two to help members in this situation, and our
customer service team now has tools to assist members with this task if
requested.

I hope this helps address some of the concerns about the timing of
this change. We're really excited about the enhancements planned for
LinkedIn Groups in the coming months, and hopefully these transition
pains will be well worth it.

Take care,
Adam

Lets see. We'll get an email a week after we're limited to 50 groups, won't see the groups that we'll still need to drop, customer service [Ticket: 080807-001871] has something available to help, but I'm still waiting for that initial response from them.

Have you seen the great number of questions on LI Q&A on this topic?

Have you signed the petition calling on LinkedIn to Consult its members?

DIRECT:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Link...

FACEBOOK USERS:
http://apps.facebook.com/petitions/vi...

Cheers John

Adam,

I thank Jay, Scott, Vincent, and others here for their insightful comments. Let me echo both the words heavy-handed and draconian.

Re: “if the change in ... SEEMS abrupt and/or incomprehensible.” No if, it is.

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.

But that is no justification for penalizing the more active and online of your members who have every legitimate right to belong to many more LinkedIn groups.

In fact LinkedIn encourages this. LinkedIn set up not one but several different Forbes groups. Then LinkedIn added Do It Yourself groups that exploded groups from 3,000 to over 100,000 and a search directory that encourage users to find and join new groups.

Regards,

Marc Freedman
The DallasBlue Business Network

LinkedIn should be renamed to ErredIn. They refused to tell how to define a user group from any other group. Also what is the abuse they are discussing. Is it spam or exactly what is it? There are numerous ways technology development can solve the problem once it's clearly defined. I don't think their technology department is adhering to "best practices" of technology design, development, and implementation. In other words "they don't appear to have a clue" the necessity of customer satisfaction in tandem with technology change. Not a clue!!!

I think you have hit the nail on the head! LinkedIn has (and has always had) flawed technology - let's face it the architecture, design and implementation are all crap.

Supose, for a moment, the CTO has shares in the company and cannot be removed!!

We have a reason for disaster!

Well spotted.

Cheers .....

I agree. Every time I've tried to get specifics from them on their issues, arch, design, etc I've gotten no response. It's just they are doing what they want and when they want with no consideration of the impact to the end user. That type of slam duck technology cramming is absolutely NEVER done in a healthy and intelligent technology design, development, and roll-out in any successful advanced technological environment. There-in (unsuccessful) is likely the root-cause of their philosophy.

Unfortunately all of the numerous hard-workers who have done no wrong are paying the price for a few abusers. It could be likened to a community that has a few crooks and instead of the police going after the few crooks and prosecuting them; the whole community is jailed. This is what LinkedIn is doing to the LinkedIn user networking community.

Many of us would like LinkedIn to take a hint from William Edwards Demming, the guru of Quality Revolution. Demming would state genius is in recognizing when to act and when to leave a process alone.

Penalizing non-abusers for abusers actions is arbitrary and does not pass the smell test. In other words it is wrong, wrong, wrong and there is absolutely no justification that will make it right.

EXACTIMUNDO, blonde & loving it! EXACTIMUNDO, indeed!

Especially this statement of yours: "Unfortunately all of the numerous hard-workers who have done no wrong are paying the price for a few abusers. It could be likened to a community that has a few crooks and instead of the police going after the few crooks and prosecuting them; the whole community is jailed. This is what LinkedIn is doing to the LinkedIn user networking community."

Gentlemen,

Can we keep it professional. though some of the comments you make are very valid, most of them belong somewhere else. For example: there is here on GS an offer from LinkedIn to communicate your 5 highest wishes of what you like to see improved or developed. then I noticed the thread about "can subgroups be combined", which is an excellent questions, because that is one of the major areas where the wild growth is happening. In that respect there are serious developments going on which will enter in Web3.0 sphere relative to value networking and global pattern recognition of links, connections and matrixes. Guys, we are not yet there. If you want to live in the future, look for a good freezer today and wake up in a couple of years. You can also actively engage in Web3.0 technology development and be part of the new wave with all of your ideas. Or you can start another thread here on GS and express all your grieves. You know, I have seen and heard this tone regular from often the same people. I don't think it suites the purpose and personally I don't like to be part of that. Life is though enough, let us be more positive and contribute, resolute where we can - not just complaint. Having said that, I don't want to generalize this, but there are individuals that do just that. Let us keep it constructivelu positive professional with an attitude to make results. This thread to me is closed and resoluted to what its purpose was.

Jay, what you think!

Have an ACCELERATing day.
best regards
Joris Claeys

Managing Director
ACCELERATE Global Supply Chain Solutions
Business, Industry & Market coaching
Collaborative Supply Chain & Marketing Mix Management for the Extended Enterprise ©

CEO & Founding Partner
MARKETING VILLAGETM
Business Service Community for the Emerging Markets
Facilitating Knowledge Convergence & Clustering ©

Thanks to Joris for being done with the polyannish views. As people who passionately love networking and positive views we all positively will not climb in to a freezer to harm ourself as Joris suggests to wake up in another century. We are not being negative and are just asking that LinkedIn do their due diligence and proper best practices implementation of technological implementation. We know fully well what that involves; been there and done that for years.

Jay, b&l,

no reason to argue, we are all on the same site of this situation, and agree not to agree to LinkedIn's non-consideration of it's community (customer), but at the same time we don't want to see LinkedIn drop to another AOL. We all worked to hard on what LinkedIn is today and what it means to us. I just hope no one will get into the freezer ...:)
regards
Joris

It seems like the people who have really taken the time to build their networks and "sell" Linkedin continue to be the ones that suffer. I spent a lot of time evaluating and joining groups - now I am supposed to decided which ones I don't want? I'm just not as excited about this tool as I used to be.

Dear fellow networkers, Adam Nash, LinkedIn,

Funny I have to address this crowd as such, as if each part are really seperate entities in a networked world like today. Absurd?!

Well I must be a bit out of my mind also - asking to close this discussion and now re-opening it myself. Well, the story is not finished - let's be clear about that.

Anyway,let me first of all claim that there is still no official statement from LinkedIn on the whole matter. This certainly doesn't show the kind of respect we would expect from LinkedIn!

Now me, I have to admit they I have made a serious mistake here, so I come out with it. This is not about the wild growth of groups and duplications et al. No this is about the limitation to 50 groups, as this question focus on in the first place. Maybe we all lost a bit of track, certainly me, getting away with the symantics of the whole broader issue.

In the past couple of days I went a bit more thorrow through my groups, and what do I discover:
- YES, sub groups and forums can and should be taken off and should not even be allowed by LinkedIn - only direct first level links to a group. Anyone can lead or follow from there in whatever the community, forum or group has to offer...
- YES, the rediculous situation of duplicated or very similar groups needs clean-up and should be the responsibility of the group owner with maybe some kind of intention push from LinkedIn. I noticed some good proposals here and on MVPF
- NO, 50 groups is not an acceptable limitation (see further)
- NO, obliging members and group owners to eliminate groups cannot be a wise decision by LinkedIn, nor can there be any technical reason for enforcing this kind of crap reasoning (sorry my expression)
- YES, we all want and need to respect that LinkedIn has the right to set its own corporate strategy and deploy it, but we seem to be all lost what the heck this has to do with corporate, market or brand stategy - so what is LinkedIn after: maybe that is the question to be answered by LinkedIn!

Now, one thing is good about this whole thing: many of us are taking a critical look at groups and my groups and start to realize that something is wrong. Maybe that is what LinkedIn also identifies, and together with us doesn't know how to tackle or actually pinpoint the issue and provide resolution.
So going through my groups, I was able to eliminate about 12 groups which made no sense or where subgroups/forums. Then there are some duplications, but it is not up to the member to start a dialogue between owners to consolidate. Result: I need to be member on all because they relate to my profile, my vision, my personality, my search for opportunities, or whatever reason anyone uses LinkedIn for.
Then there are those groups which actually not lead to any forum or community. I believe another category has to be created for this, such as taggers or something alike. Examples: Skype, Plaxo, and all other social business networks - nevertheless, be carefull some are really forums or groups or communities. So 1-by-1 evaluation is mandatory (by the member).
Then there are some groups which lead to nothing, really nothing. Get this crap out!
Then there are group owners who don't administer their members, starting with the confirmation of membership and further: they should be reported and tagged - I'm sorry, if you don't have the time to do something serious as a group owner, stay away from it. People may waste a lot of time because of that type of owner ignorence. I have deleted 4 groups already, just for this kind of situation.

Ok that brings me to the last issue, which needs real attention by LinkedIn: good networkeres do not look at the numbers, they look at the quality of their network and how they can mutually benefit from connections, groups, et al... Go to the social networks if you have other intends...
For those who take social business networking serious and build on the and their future, lets not step into a freezer as I had suggested (only ironically ...). Here comes the point: a limitation of 50 groups is REDICULOUS and makes no sense. What justification can be given for that number: I don't have any. While I eliminated some obvious ones, I added myself new ones and got invited to be part of other once. Some made no sense and ignored them - pure commercial advertising with only one-sided benefit - not mine, others belong to the categories outlined above.

RESULT: I still have about 80 groups. I can maybe take out 1 or 3, but that is it. And I am sure as I grow my network - in the true professional sense - I am convinced I will be needing to add more.

LINKEDIN: 2 major issues here:
1. the attitude with which this all thing was announced is unacceptable and that was my first complaint. A non-official statement was made here by Adam NAsh - with all respect) but to-date has not been followed-through by LinkedIn. If LinkedIn believe this continued non-customer-centric behavior can continue without consequences, I believe in the long run lessons will be learned, possible to late (this is no threat, just a logical axioma = history repeats itself constantly - we don't learn enough lessons from the mistakes we make.
2. Clean up does not mean acting like a dictator - nor do we need or request for a democratic corporate strategy, but in this world importance is all about consideration towards all stakeholders. I think it is high time for LinkedIn to learn some basic priniciples in stakeholder relation management, or possibly loose its base of existance - ie: product/service life-cycle = nothing is forever, unless you innovate, listen to your customers and make them happy... even Julius Ceasar learned his lesson by giving his people the games and made them happy...

LinedIn !!! this entire issue is in your camp to correct.

Thanks for listening and make the corrective action considering all your stakeholders.

Have an ACCELERATing day.
best regards
Joris Claeys

Managing Director
ACCELERATE Global Supply Chain Solutions
Business, Industry & Market coaching
Collaborative Supply Chain & Marketing Mix Management for the Extended Enterprise ©

CEO & Founding Partner
MARKETING VILLAGETM
Business Service Community for the Emerging Markets
Facilitating Knowledge Convergence & Clustering ©

As the owner of a legitimate group that has very clear membership criteria in the group description, I am really fed up with having to weed out the turkeys applying who have no connection whatsoever with the group.

When you click on their profile, you find that they are members of dozens and dozens of groups that they couldn't possibly have any connection with.

If you claim to be a recruiter but are too cheap to pay for LinkedIn service... you aren't a real recruiter.

Have you signed the petition calling on LinkedIn to Consult its members?

DIRECT:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Link...

FACEBOOK USERS:
http://apps.facebook.com/petitions/vi...

Cheers John

Although I may currently have over +800 groups that I am a member of, I can also understand that LI wants to push for quality rather then quantity, but since such a policy was not in place from the start, then LI should look at one of the following:

- Making the withdrawal from group easier (using multiple tick boxes) as I personally don't have enough time right now to go into +750 groups manually to withdraw from them.

- If displaying all the groups is the main concern, then they can display the first 50 groups along with a link for (... show more groups) just like what they have with the shared connections for example.

- Keep the restriction to limiting a large number of pending groups only (which should slow down the process of joining groups for those like me that like to join almost any and every group.

Ehab Elagaty
SAP Network
www.linkedin.com/in/sapnetwork

Thanks Jay, I will send LI CS an email and try that.

I guess another thing that I didn't mention is LI could focus on improving the tools for accepting requests to join groups, that way the control can be given back to the moderators of the groups. This may be done by displaying a summary of profiles (or at least similar to the layout used in searches) that way the owner could get more information about people interested in joining a group rather then having to click on each one individually.

Ehab Elagaty
SAP Network
www.linkedin.com/in/sapnetwork

Elab, I recognize your name.

I had to waste my limited personal time to scan your 20-page profile and reject your application to my group.

What was your purpose in attempting to join a group that you have no connection with?

People like you are ruining LinkedIn.

One more thing, I only knew about this issue through receiving an email from Marc Freedman that got my attention. As I have not been reading my default gmail email that is set on my profile (as I get way too many junks and spams), I mainly Accept All invitations from within LI and forward introductions, and if I get a chance I would look at the InMail, Q&A, Messages or Jobs, I would assume that there are many others that may have setup a special email on linkedin for similar reasons.

I guess if LI was serious about something like this, then they should have made a folder in the inbox like (important notices) or make the important notice appear when a user logs in somehow.

Ehab Elagaty
SAP Network
www.linkedin.com/in/sapnetwork

LinkedIn has started to roll out their groups "upgrade" (whoops, make that "downgrade")

Click here for the new GetSatisfaction.com topic on this...

Part of the problem is that we went for so long without the ability to search for a croup that in some cases there are a dozen ro more similar or identical groups with different memberships. Without the ability to combine them into a single group, I en up joining all of them. That quickly adds up to a whole lot of groups.

Right - and we took a lot of time to join our groups. I had a purpose for every single group I joined. It's really lousy that we now have to take the time to go through and evaluate each one. Why not make the 50 a rule for the future? I don't understand why they have to punish the people who currently have more than 50.

The total number of schools you have attended, companies you have worked for and professional organizations you currently belong to exceeds 50?

Absolutely!! There are all kinds of private interests, technologies, functions, groups etc. It's not just alumni groups and associations.

I believe there's a confusion underlying much of this discussion due to the ambiguous use of the term "group." There are at least two distinct types of entities being treated as groups, both by LinkedIn and the rest of us:
(a) Real world organizations existing independently of LinkedIn with membership lists, staffs (paid or volunteer), trademarked logos, etc.
(b) Self-identifed affiliations having no existence apart from LinkedIn (or Facebook, etc.) and within the minds of the group members themselves.

To decide who belongs to a real world organization is simple in theory (although not so easy in practice!); one must authenticate all membership requests against an authoritative source. Furthermore, the number of such organizations -- once duplcation is eliminated -- should be relatively limited, at least within a narrow band of time.

To decide who belongs to a self-identified affiliation, on the other hand, is impossible in principle. Furthermore, the numbers of such affiliations and their total membership can easily grow without limit until hitting the physical storage capacity of the platform or the processing power of its search engine.

LinkedIn has unfortunately gotten a tiger by the tail with this group business. There are endless ways they can be bitten by aspiring group members, group owners, trademark owners and so forth. I sincerely wish them well in getting it all sorted out; I have a much greater appreciation now for the magnitude of the problem they face than when this thread first began.

My only advice/admonishment to LinkedIn's management, repeated from earlier posts, is to try to be more careful in their execution and especially to anticipate the pain they cause their loyal members/users/customers when they implement poorly tested software without adequate notification and consultation.

Well put, Paul.

Adam, you seem to be credibally attempting to respond on behalf of LinkedIn. unfortunately i got this website just now and my post at many other forums went ineeffective. Even Linked customer support didn't revert back and some of your board members IDKed me for connection before I can put this to them. Please see below post and your response is eagerly awaited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I saw the tremendous noise from wonderstruck members over new
LinkedIn 50 group restriction and 10 day mandate period. The noise
so far hasn't produced any Win-Win proposition. Here's i am
attempting one and seeking your feedback (please see below -
although it will take some patience to read 2 full pages :-)

I am also sending this individually to some stalwarts, other
relevant internet forums and LinkedIn management. Your advice on
consolidating and actionizing this will be most valuable

Best Regards,
Parag Khair
http://tinyurl.com/LinkedIn-ParagKhair
--------------------------------------------------------------------

WIN-WIN PROPOSITION TO LINKEDIN

Dear LinkedIn Management,

As an active supporter member of LinkedIn, I would like to put up
following proposition for your consideration. The recent changes,
having created fair amount of turbulence in the LinkedIn community,
invite a fresh look at different approach and possibilities. Here's
one attempt to protect the interests of all the stakeholders. I am
ever optimistic that understanding the other's point of view results
in successfully negotiated Win-Win solutions.

The Context -

The 50 group restriction and the 10 days time to curtail the excess
groups provided by LinkedIn have invoked a tremendous reaction
across the web community through forums, blogs and emails.

The stakeholders -

1) Very Active LinkedIn members – They have been long with LinkedIn
and have spent enormous effort in growing with LinkedIn and in the
process growing LinkedIn. In the process, they have developed very
large networks of thousands of (first level) connections and joined
large number of groups exceeding way beyond 50. These members are
fairly active in many groups and will find it very difficult to cut
their arms and legs within 10 days of limited period given.

2) Group founders/managers of newer/smaller groups – Many of the
newer/smaller groups may be in a relatively nascent state today but
may have tremendous promise going forward. Many of these groups will
face a huge attrition as members are likely to withdraw in favor of
larger and more active groups. The plight of these groups is one of
the most serious concerns on this issue

3) LinkedIn – In today's extremely crowded market of social/
professional networking sites, LinkedIn's biggest advantage is early
starter which enabled user base of 25 M +. The biggest challenge the
competitors face in the internet market is usage habits of the
users. Beyond that, replicating the functionality, performance and
user experience are non-issues.

Also, we have to keep in mind, in the internet world, number 3s and
4s don't survive in the maturing industry. Irrespective of excellent
products, one has to be either number 1 or 2. (Cursory glance at the
market shares of browser market, search engine market, etc. will
prove the fact beyond doubt).

This is definitely not the point in the industry life cycle where
Linked wants to make members leave in groups, just because they
can't survive on linked and form the groups on competing networks.

Perceived reason why LinkedIn may have opted for this -

1) Scalability of hardware and software – With ever increasing user
population at fast pace (over 25 M+ now) and ever increasing groups
(over 90 K+ now), managing QOS can be challenging.

2) With planned enhanced, interactive functionality for the groups
(which many competitors have already gone way ahead), the load on
the platform could increase multi-fold.

Proposed WIN-WIN solution for all stakeholders -

Having gone through the piles of reactions on various websites,
majority of members have voiced frustrated tones proposing either
work around or contingency strategies including moving the whole
groups to other websites. Very few have seen the silver lining and
hoped for the better future. However, I haven't seen a Win-Win
solution being proposed that will justify the members' close
relationship with LinkedIn so far. Here's one attempt to propose it
with due respect to all the differences of opinions and necessary
changes to the details thereby.

I propose that an interim period of around 6 months to be provided
for this major transition to a 50 group restriction. The date of
31st January 2009 is proposed (However LinkedIn having more
visibility on the statistics can adjust this date as appropriate)

During the interim period, LinkedIn system can enforce the below
restrictions -

1) No new groups will be created during this period (system will
block the functionality)

2) The existing members with less than 50 groups or the new members
will be allowed to join only up to 50 groups

3) The existing members with more than 50 groups will not be allowed
to join any more new groups. (Unless until they withdraw from some
of the groups to bring their total to less than 50. In that case,
they will be allowed to join new groups only up to the total becomes
50)

At the end of the interim period -

LinkedIn system can opt for any one of the below two options

1) Curtail the groups of the members exceeding total of 50 groups
(may be based on the sequence of their joining)

2) Provide a fee based structure for joining the groups more than
50.

3) LinkedIn can roll out the new groups functionality in small
stages either during or after the interim period as deemed fit by
the platform QOS considerations

I firmly believe the above solution, with some necessary
adjustments, will find favor with all the stakeholders mentioned
above.

Modus of communicating this solution with all the stakeholders -

This is the section; I really need advice and inputs from LinkedIn
management and all the networking stalwarts on it.

LinkedIn – I am posting it to the email addresses provided with the
communication email

LinkedIn members – I am sending this email to all the very active
members that I know of, all the LinkedIn forums that I know of and
some other popular web discussions. Any suggestion of consolidating
this for a wider community feedback that can become final
consideration matter for LinkedIn management is most welcome.

Best Regards,
An ever optimist LinkedIn supporter and member

Mr. Khair -

* You have a trick link to a page on a site called "DallasBlue"

* You describe yourself on your profile as
"IT Services Management and Business Development..... [LION 500|5M+] "

What is the point of all this?

I'm not asking to be a wise guy... I genuinely do not understand the purpose of all the trivial affiliations that you "open networkers" build up and brag about so much.

Have you ever gotten any business because of this stuff?

Groupowner, pardon my ignorance, if any. But i never thought anything wrong in having affiliations beyong my core business (say...IT in this case). Deades ago, the personal enrichment beyond business used to be through local community activities may be community centers, saloons, theatres, sports competitions, religous institutes, etc. In this interesting era of web mankind will expand in the virtual world and engulf itself in diverse interests. Isn't there any point in this??

Regarding DallasBlue link. I am not sure why you call it trick link. They have built a handy utility where in users can see my LI profile or invite me to connect in least possible mouse clicks. Its just a productivity tool unless again I am missing something :-)

My biggest surprise though, your comments don't mention anything about my Win-win proposition - the real content. They talk only about what I do in my personal time :-)

LinkedIn always talks about trusted contacts.

You "open networkers" are trying to use the system for a purpose different than it was intended for.

LinkedIn is now very belatedly and somewhat clumsily cracking down.

Setting all that aside, I genuinely do not understand the purpose of all the trivial affiliations that people build up and brag about so much.

Well put, Jay.

Until recently the member instructions about trust-based networking have not been enforced by how the system works.

Yes, many of the applications we reject are supposedly recruiters. I believe that LinkedIn has paid services for recruiters and others who need more than you get with a free membership.

Many people join LinkedIn and see the people with 500+ connections and hundreds of group memberships; and email addresses or "LION" or "5,000+" in peoples' names. Then they get invitations from people they don't know.

They write LinkedIn off as another Facebook and don't come back.

25 million have tried it and some use it.

The tragedy of the commons.

groupowner - I am also really tired of you slamming recruiters. Why do you again decide that they are people that are misusing the system? As a recruiter, I get many, many emails from connections in my groups and people I am connected to asking for suggestions, information, contact requests, etc. These come from people that are looking for both a new position and a client that needs to hire a new person or would like to ask for my expertise.

Too many LinkedIn members are abusing the system. (Many of them claim to be recruiters. Sadly giving recruiters a bad name.)

Harassing group owners by applying to groups they have no connection with.

Cheating the free membership with tricks like Blue instead of paying LinkedIn.

Putting junk in their name and on their profile like "LION" or "1,000,000+"

Sending invitations to people they don't know

If you are not doing this stuff, good

Many people join LinkedIn and see the junk. The only result they see are "invitations" from people they don't know. They write LinkedIn off and don't come back.

How many of the "25 million members" come back?

If LinkedIn doesn't clean up their system, they are going to be join Friendster, Plaxo, AOL... in the living dead

If LinkedIn doesn't think carefully about changes and communicate with members as they do the cleanup, they will be, like eBay, hated by their customers

Well spoken GroupOwner. I fully endorse your claim for a better healthier and professional netoworking environment. Even this medium is being abused for a lot of rubish.
Lets make it even stronger: I even get "don't know" hits (few, but still unacceptable) from some recruiters, though we had communicationin the past. I don't understand some of these professionals as they can only gain from enlarging their network, but that is a whole other matter and in the end it is every individual right to decide how to build their network, What is more important that these same people think of the consequences this results in due to LinkedIn's unacceptable performance measurement criteria - if ever such thing exist. For months I have a comment returning back on my profile based on a couple of individuals (10 over 2000 invites) their decisionto hit that red button Don't Know ! Thanks!

Look around LinkedIn and you will find that the ones abusing the system with dirt in their name fields and elsewhere are mostly recruiters...

I agree, LinkedIn rather focuses on cleaning up the mess rather then postering good professional networkers. I have been sending them on this subject probably about 15 emails in the last month or 2, complete with resolutions and everuthing ... nothing is happening.

Same with the invitation quota and their performance measurement procedure: there is no transparant methodology behind it, except for perhaps getting you to sign up for a paid membership. I don't mind paying for value, but LinkedIn is not providing service to its customers - paid or not paid.

Well I believe many people are making inventive side roadpaths to achieve what they want. Being inventive is healthy, but the current chaos is caused by LinkedIn. Don't blame us LinkedIn.

Thanks for listening
best regards
Joris Claeys
MARKETING VILLAGE

Well, I guess both of you have decided that it's "recruiters" that have ruined LinkedIn. Give me a break - there are people all over the world that use it for all kinds of reasons. I get all kinds of messages from people from all disciplines from people I don't know - so what? Joris - you are not on there to grow your business? My guess the answer to that is yes. Dirt in their namefields? What is that? Because you don't like it - you decided it was dirt!
Groupowner is a "know it all". I just hope both of you never need to work with a great recruiter - I have been recruiting for 15 years and people gain invaluable insight into the process working with me.
I am done with this conversation now - I do hope LinkedIN will reconsider the 50 groups rule. Thanks!

I said:

Many of them claim to be recruiters. Sadly giving recruiters a bad name.

If you are not doing this stuff, good

Have you signed the petition calling on LinkedIn to Consult its members?

DIRECT:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Link...

FACEBOOK USERS:
http://apps.facebook.com/petitions/vi...

Cheers John

What is the point of the petition?

LinkedIn put these two questions for group owners on LinkedIn Answers a couple of days ago:

What are the key features you need to manage your LinkedIn group?
http://tinyurl.com/59w5ut

How can LinkedIn Groups managers best work with each other and LinkedIn?
http://tinyurl.com/6pz54k

You forgot already!

The petition predated the above by many days.

----------Original Message----------
Dear Arsen,

Thank you for contacting LinkedIn Customer Support. We understand that you may be inconvenienced by this change to the site. We do ask that you do not set up another account in order to have more groups, this is being tracked as well and we are watching for those types of actions as wells.

If you have any further questions, please just let me know.

Thanks,
Troy L.

----------Original Message----------
Customer (Arsen Yeremin) 08/04/2008 07:25 PM
I can't believe you are limiting the number of groups a person can
belong to. This has to piss off users most dedicated to linked in. I
guess I'll have to create another account and keep half my groups in
it. You would piss people off less if you charged for having unlimited
group. This is the worst news I've had all year. This is the first
step to a company being qualified as "Evil" Give me a call if you want
to talk this over.

--
===================================================
Arsen Yeremin arsen3d@gmail.com T: (707)703-1584
http://www.linkedin.com/in/arsenyeremin F: (270)682-3873
===================================================

Same issue - after over a decade of networking I have been a part of MANY groups. I was shocked to see a warning that I'm close to my "limit". Many of the groups I'm in are for professional certifications - should I drop those? Should I drop the ones I'm on the board of? Should I drop the ones my customers are managing and want me to keep an eye on? If they are closed networks that require an approval to join, how does LinkedIn need to police beyond that? This is heartbreaking - it stops me from doing my job.