Aneta Bereda's dashboard

Have I missed it?
Is the sort feature off the table?

Search is not Sort. Not even sorta.

I did turn off the discussion feature on my new business development networking group. Lucky I did because someone requested I turn it on to start selling to the group even before a first meeting in October was announced. How Gauche!

Nothing like driving away the CEO of X-Big Bank because he gets spammed with resumes and pitches in one form or another. It's called tuning out. And before even the first dinner is announced I had a member that wanted to fill his inbox. Look at the clutter on the home pages.

I liked the feature Members Withdrawn because this allowed for some post-group communication. That list had the potential to nip problems in the bud. It is missed.

As for a definition of SPAM... If I shotgun a message, that is SPAM according to me. SPAM = Junk Mail. Broadcasting messages like "join my group" one time from one member may be innocuous SPAM. But LinkedIn has 20+ MILLION members and not all of them will share the same ideas of Nettiquette or a unified definition of SPAM.

Turning the Discussion feature Off is the best part of the upgrade to that particular feature.

Just my $0.02

And, Steve, thank you for pointing out Ben's blog. It needs to be better advertised. I have enough to read daily without looking for more. In my face changes require an in my face explanation, IMHO.

I guess this is a final, lonely comment on this topic - though it has not been resolved, IMHO. The topic seems forgotten or ignored, like the wisdom of grand parents, but it needs to be repeated clearly: the sort by date was one of the most useful features in organization management..

1 - The sort feature is still broken, and it is the bestest broken I never saw.

The sort now works by degree and connections. None of this alphabetical or chronological filing: 52-pick-up is the new organization. This sort holds all the excitement of watching a Florida dog race from a retirement-home rocker and less of the pay off.

There is a Search Members feature to help me welcome new members. Putting the words "new members" into the search fields does not help me but hey, I tried it just in case it was a joke. (Yeah, the promise was that it would be restored.)

At the "Requests To Join," which usually acts as a holding cell for the many requests that do not quite make the grade at the moment, I can watch the same dog race as these names jostle for first position in their respective categories: Show (or 2nd Degree) and Place (3rd Degree). They move according to the number of connections they have.

2 - The "Joined On" information is spotty. I have no idea why this function does not work uniform and I have no idea when it happenned. All I know is that I have no idea when some people joined and why some people get a date stamp and others do not Weep for the loss of data integrity.

The "Requested On" is uniform. I mean in a good way.

3 - The "Members Withdrawn" list was useful. I used it once after 1% of members withdrew, sending them an email to them asking if all was well. This good feature had the potential to provide an early warning flag because, had these withdrawn members been harrassed by current members, I could have improved the group.

Under the current sort/random shuffle function, I can no longer even note who withdrew. Running a forum, which holds conversations in the open in case someone does not know what is a forum/BBS, I have seen some laughable breeches in Nettiquette like when a new member spammed people using Private Message. The new member had just joined and spammed everyone with a question rather than post it once on the forum board. So, nothing would surprise me as to give cause to leave a group.

And the surprises that this topic has brought out have not been pleasant or entirely resolved.

Steve;

What about communications from LinkedIn?

Exactly as you say, things are not obvious or apparent - and were so BEFORE the implementation at the time of design . Why so secretive to us after the launch. The design MUST (it's not even a should) explain some features AT the launch. Communication rates a zero.

Or have I got it wrong?

So you're really Lovin' it?

Discussion is the new SPAM. Watch for the discussion "join my group" coming soon to every group.

LinkedIn: please do not hide away my Group's website into a "profile" tab. Let the discussions, the flames, the SPAM, and the other shenanigans take place in an environment I can better control so I can turn OFF the "Discussion=SPAM" feature.

There is so much more wrong with LI's new feature but it's all been done by better than me here: http://tiny.cc/TheLIspamMachine

Discussion is the new SPAM. Watch for the discussion "join my group" coming soon to every group manager.

LinkedIn: please do not hide away my Group's website into a "profile" tab. Let the discussions, flames, SPAM, and other shenanigans take place in an environment I can better control so I can turn OFF the "Discussion=SPAM" feature.

Other discussion here: http://tiny.cc/TheLIspamMachine

I must have missed this feature function in the operator's manual. Now that I searched for it, I will likewise take the same precaution. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. And I would also say this solves the problem from the Group Manager perspective - except that I DO NOT WANT LINKEDIN TO HIDE MY GROUP'S WEBSITE INFORMATION - which is where discussion should take place. From a reader's POV, I will still get SPAMmed by the other groups I do not "pwn." <---maybe we should start talking leet 5p33k or some other adolescent gibberish to get the attention we deserve? – Aneta Bereda, on August 30, 2008 14:30

Making the best of the situation, which the new feature permits, I have used the discussion feature to "form letter" (using the max 200 characters) all the groups relevent to my own group to invite members to my group.

I do not intend to do it again in 2008, realising that not every one will choose to come to me through a SPAM, but now they have a choice. Thanks to the new feature, I have been able to reach out to everyone efficiently. That's about all I can smile about.

I hope others will not use this same feature to irresponsibly SPAM me every week, and I hope I am not punished (read: delisted/blocked) because I have responsibly used the feature improvement given to me for what appears to be its sole purpose.

I outlined the whole situation from my perspective HERE so I won't go rehash it. I will add another face to the total, and I suspect the usual Group Manager faces will appear in comments over time

if anyone is really confused by this, recall the history of what MicroSoft did to Correl over Linux. It is too early to say "Long LIve LInkedIn" because the LinkedIn we know has not completely died. But the day is coming. You can tell from the respectful silence from management. So let me be the first: Long Live LinkedIn. Everyone else: man the life-Pods. – Aneta Bereda, on August 30, 2008 05:03

So, now we have the discussion feature. And websites are shunted into a group's "profile." Do you suppose websites will be the next rationalization: websites made redundant?

In typical LinkedIn fashion, no explanation was given how the new feature works. So we posted a call to group members to participate in a dummy discussion, and the discussion feature appears to function much like a forum, except without a forum's quote feature and there is a big caveat emptor: comments can disappear when the commentor deletes his/her comment. That should be good for a flame war. Nothing like plausible deniability to motivate a hothead from acting first and thinking..... later.

Hands up: who wants to look stupid?

Also, comments return to 1) the INBOX, 2) the email associated to the LinkedIn account and 3) to the comment feature. Nothing like a powerful question to drive the IT administrator crazy. We need more disk space. (Yes, it is time I got a Yahoo/Gmail account and stopped using the company email.)

Currently there is a bug - I hope it is a bug - that prevents replies via INBOX (I am refering to the home page tally list of unreplied mail). So these unreplied messages need to be archived and the messages sent to email deleted. Replies can be made via the "comment" feature. Sorry MeatLoaf but "One out of three ain't bad" where LinkedIn is at today.

And we have a mighty 200 characters with which to start a discussion. No html for source material or a YouTube link.

All in all, not much functionability when compared to what we currently offer our groups through the remote forums we run for them. Remore forums provide networking through archived information; interactive discussions; a rich web 2.0 environment; the Private Message feature; the ability for posters to hide their email but identify themself; selectively track discussions online; etc. This description is just in case someone does not know what a forum is/offers.

The LinkedIn discussion feature is no match to even a free forum. Plus the feature makes it annoying to be a member of 19 groups and have real-time discussions show up on the LinkedIn home page for all 19 groups. This takes away from my keeping efficient contact with my contacts' changes and, ultimately, my personal networking effectiveness on LinkedIN.

I only hope that the old feature publicizing a "non-LinkedIn" website will remain alongside the poorer "discussion" feature. Remote websites and forums are valuable and generous resources to online groups. See what I mean here (plug): www.thecanadianexpat.com

Really, take a quick look and imagine what it offers the target community. No way is LInkedIn going to have bandwidth for that. And what you will see at the link, as modest as it is, outweighs the new discussion feature 10:1.

Maybe you share my opinion? Or have I missed something that the discussion feature offers that is new? Remember, I live in the country Hitler generously "liberated" prior to the freedom extended to us by the Soviet Union - so I am non-plused by being given things (like freedom) I already have and I am wary about losing the things I had (freedom) in place of the gifts being given.

Aneta – Aneta Bereda, on August 29, 2008 17:48

So, now we have the discussion feature. And websites are shunted into a group's "profile." Do you suppose websites will be the next rationalization: websites made redundant?

In typical LinkedIn fashion, no explanation was given how the new feature works. So we posted a call to group members to participate in a dummy discussion, and the discussion feature appears to function much like a forum, except without a forum's quote feature and there is a big caveat emptor: comments can disappear when the commentor deletes his/her comment. That should be good for a flame war. Nothing like plausible deniability to motivate a hothead from acting first and thinking..... later.

Hands up: who wants to look stupid?

Also, comments return to 1) the INBOX, 2) the email associated to the LinkedIn account and 3) to the comment feature. Nothing like a powerful question to drive the IT administrator crazy. We need more disk space. (Yes, it is time I got a Yahoo/Gmail account and stopped using the company email.)

Currently there is a bug - I hope it is a bug - that prevents replies via INBOX (I am refering to the home page tally list of unreplied mail). So these unreplied messages need to be archived and the messages sent to email deleted. Replies can be made via the "comment" feature. Sorry MeatLoaf but "One out of three ain't bad" where LinkedIn is at today.

And we have a mighty 200 characters with which to start a discussion. No html for source material or a YouTube link.

All in all, not much functionability when compared to what we currently offer our groups through the remote forums we run for them. Remore forums provide networking through archived information; interactive discussions; a rich web 2.0 environment; the Private Message feature; the ability for posters to hide their email but identify themself; selectively track discussions online; etc. This description is just in case someone does not know what a forum is/offers.

The LinkedIn discussion feature is no match to even a free forum. Plus the feature makes it annoying to be a member of 19 groups and have real-time discussions show up on the LinkedIn home page for all 19 groups. This takes away from my keeping efficient contact with my contacts' changes and, ultimately, my personal networking effectiveness on LinkedIN.

I only hope that the old feature publicizing a "non-LinkedIn" website will remain alongside the poorer "discussion" feature. Remote websites and forums are valuable and generous resources to online groups. See what I mean here (plug): www.thecanadianexpat.com

Really, take a quick look and imagine what it offers the target community. No way is LInkedIn going to have bandwidth for that. And what you will see at the link, as modest as it is, outweighs the new discussion feature 10:1.

Maybe you share my opinion? Or have I missed something that the discussion feature offers that is new? Remember, I live in the country Hitler generously "liberated" prior to the freedom extended to us by the Soviet Union - so I am non-plused by being given things (like freedom) I already have and I am wary about losing the things I had (freedom) in place of the gifts being given.

Aneta

>>>>interpretation of me posting the Black Hat video<<< lex, you mean to say you did not intend the posting as advertising on a MicroSoft site? - Aneta – Aneta Bereda, on August 27, 2008 13:16

It seems words will trump deeds and then spur a really bad reaction when people realize the betrayal they feel is from their own rush to judgement. I received the same email as cactus (and you did) estolling the future.

Should we wait and see if this solves the problem before we celebrate and disband? I live in Poland and, well, what would have happened if the success of D-Day was good enough in Wolrd War 2? You know: Peace in our time. I do not know what you guys think about groups and how they _should_ work but my firm runs two websites and outsources a third for groups. The forums encourage grouip conversation rather than the cubicle blogging of Q&A.

Does anyone have the time to respond to 350 individual responses and CARRY ON INDIVIDUAL DIALOGUES with all when a forum atmosphere will build and jell the community (rather than a full time band leader)? One Question on Q&A has generated over 350 responses. Others are merely in the lower hundreds....

I wonder if this will be the communications architecture being offered? Do you know, cactus...?

So, it's nice that LinkedIn plans to give me what I already have got going while it has taken away what was useful. (Nothing like redundancy at the cost of functionality to warm my heart.) And the people who think this is great now were not running "group communities," IMHO. They were selling group badges on LinkedIN.

And, yes, one group we run is a professional group. And, no, there are no flame wars. Amazing how having a simple control like requiring a real name and company email address solves the problems of trolls and hot-heads.

So, with all due respect to cactus, this problem is not solved until the fat lady sings - or we risk deja vu all over again. Just ask any fireman what he thinks about turning his back on a fire. Let's not jump the gun on this "solved" status just yet

Aneta

I have an improper application for the Business Development group from someone. In English-speak, I simply decline the applicant at this time. In LI-terms, I cower in my boots in fear of any online decision.

Under the "new rules," what happens to this application when I decline it?

The application is declined because the person is in no position to give me new business, but this can change over time. Does my judgement to decline now prevent me from re-visiting this applicant and reversing my decision at a latter date?

Or is it so long, farewell, adios, auf wiedersen we will never meet again?

Microsoft launch, I think for '98 or Milllenium. The one where the launch did not happen in the year it was supposed to because of the software issues (read: bugs) that held it up. But don't Start Me Up on that. – Aneta Bereda, on August 22, 2008 06:03