Joris g Claeys's dashboard

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

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 ©

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

In line with my requirements.

Collaboration in the Web3.0 environment should start now by eliminating making clean ship with all the duplication going on right now. Some application own the market and there should be some competition, surely. But it is like everyone is doing the same thing, or trying to. There should be open choice, but at the same time - and PlaxoPulse has proven it's capabilities in this aea - the collaboration and use of open technology should be made available more, already today and the big ones, including LinkedIn should and can drive a lot of the direction here and at the same time benefit from it. The choices available today is already too much for the simple user to understand and make optimal use out of it.

The natural selection will weed out over time, but many of us loose a lot of time on all of this. Let us make life on Internet web3.0 much more simple then it is today.

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 ©

Hi Ben,

Surprised no one responded to this because in today's heat this question is very valid and should be expanded to encompass whether subgroups should be on LinkedIn. As a group is created properly it should refer to another site as LinkedIn currently doesn't offer anything of a kind. Once there you can have reference to all the sub groups and forums included in the group. It is or should be normal attitude for those signing up to a group to do some investigation and learning. I do this and it results in the 50+ groups I have signed up with that I can easily eliminate 20 and then I have only gone through 20% of my groups cause it is taking time if you want to do it professionally.

For those who want to see the broader scope, if you can use the today's SEO functions, you will be fascinated what you can find out and make links yourself or any correlation.

Gentlemen, the world is connected, make use of it with the technology available. Things ill improve, surely. And I hope that LinkedIn's announced improvements of inteeractivity are giving an entrance to Web3.0 environment. I am sure it will, even if it is not completely the way we want it. We will get there ... be patient.

Having said that, both LinkedIn and its user community have the responsibility to clean up the wild growth and to ensure that visibility / transparancy is the future...

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 ©

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 ©

Hi Christina,

We welcome your reach-out and wish some more people would add their requirements. Maybe you should link this webpage or dedicate an area on LinkedIn to get the kind of feedback from the entire user community. There are very good suggestions made, to which I underwrite to almost all of them. Providing the top 5 things you want to see - is it changed or new features, I think you should differentiate between improvement and new development - is not that straight forward, considering I am always in a rush. I have noticed in one of the responses a different approach in achieving this kind of feedback from the user community, which I think makes the most sense. As is with bugs handling and release management of new developments, this kind of "sucking brains" (positive definition) needs a structured approach. I leave it with that because there are examples enough to show best practice.

So here are my 5 points (in a rush):

1. I put it on top and is as a repeat to aforementioned statements, to stress its importance: Customer Service. Though there has been some improvement, I like to suggest the whole team takes a seminar in stakeholder relation management - no offence, it is really needed. That starts with the human touch. Stop the standardized responses (ok for initial recognition of received requests or reports - but unacceptable to resolution communication, unless the resolution has been proven adequate. That doesn't take away that a good structure and procedures need to be in place within and across your organization - this is not only about Customer Service, but also note other comments on development and releases as aforementioned. My motto - slightly adapted: do the RIGHT things RIGHT the FIRST time.

2. The whole contact feature needs revision and all of the above suggestions should be incorporated. I would like to add one to that: integrate LinkedIn with the optional synch of Plaxo, Zoom and/or Spoke - maybe others exist. It is so funny that all respected social (business) networks and others relate to LinkedIn, but LinkedIn does not use the - in many cases much better - features these specialized sites bring to the end-user. Lets make this clear: there are standards on contact information management or at least the market runners should be followed. I don't think this should be a LinkedIn market setter - stop duplication and messing up of people's address book (see also further, because there is accountability for LinkedIn). Others have already signed collaboration agreements (e.g.: Zoom and Xing).
That all said, there are some very good features or results from the existing functionality, such as the look-up in outlook and the ability to recognize your contacts as LI members, out of network or not at all. I hope they will always remain, because those are great to manage ones contacts. One simple feature to be added to contacts is tagging or segmentation of your contacts in your network. Most people, who respect their network and want to collaborate, organize this today within their outlook or CRM application, but synchronization on-line at LinkedIn would be great to have.

3. OK, here is the hot-burner, which makes so many people upset in either direction. I think this may require a debate here on GetSatisfaction, however, here is my opinion with very valid sustained reasons behind it: enforcing proper use of any data field on LinkedIn, starting with the contact information: name, title, company and address (mandatory country is just one example as LI data synchronization feature with Outlook constantly blanks out the country - no offense, but this is an international network and the world is flat, no matter how you turn it. So Americans and others: know there are more countries in the world then USA - make use of the international standards. Also add a region field to the address block and use the international standards for phone numbers, etceteras). In my honest opinion, I suggest LinkedIn not just enforces the standards but also takes adequate action for non-compliance. Also, note that those taking a loop with the standards, really fool themselves as they exclude themselves in search engines, etceteras. These things would ensure a healthy LinkedIn for professional people who respect their network contacts and do themselves a favor as well.

4. Let us hit the feature of invitations once more: in addition to the above mentioned features people want to see, there is an urgent need for setting up correct metrics on historical performance statistics when it comes to judging a user (by LinkedIn) on its invitation track record and limitations applied to his/her account. LinkedIn's current methods are so in-transparent, unless one looks at the easy process put in place - based on the "don't know" feature. Performance-based criteria would be more correct in reflecting abuse and taking corrective action. The review of procedures here should also include a revision of the invitation quota. The current approach is childish and does not reflect the commercial / business / professional needs of someone that takes business networking serious. This is not about numbers for many, but about the potential to create market for their product / service, at present or in the future. I understand LinkedIn has strategically determined to link this to signing-up for paid account, but is there not more money to be gained from the commercials you are running on LinkedIn... If LinkedIn underwrites OpenInternet then it should give the example. This is one of those features where LinkedIn would proof its stand and make a difference for its community.

5. I don't have a fifth one can you imagine :) – not for now...

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 ©

Adam, this is clearly a win-win resolution. We appreciate your efforts and engagement. I also hope this has deeper grounds for future considerations by LinkedIn strategy setting.
I look forward to see the announced improvements on interactivity to be expected.
HAve an ACCELERATing day (or tomorrow) ahead.

Best regards
Joris Claeys

Managing Director
ACCELERATE Global Supply Chain Solutions
Business, Industry and Market Coaching

The MARKETING VILLAGE
Business Service Community for the Emerging Markets - Facilitating Knowledge Convergence© – Joris g Claeys, on August 09, 2008 05:26

Well it doesn't answer the question, but it certainly points out the issue to its bear roots. I hope LinkedIn senior management reads this thread and reviews its strategies accordingly. Having been there at the birth of LinkedIn and experienced the mentality of the starters, together with many that respond here, feel clearly that something has gone wrong down the line. LinkedIn doesn't portray what it was intended for. It is ok for an initiative and a company, to mature and to become commercially viable. That's a must and a given. That that results in some core dreamer ideas to vanish, also that is ok. But looking at LinkedIn's largest commodity (sorry to express it that way), it is not the software, it is not its strategy - though very important -, no it is it's +25 million user community. It's the combined sould of LinkedIn's success!

Having said all that, I think we have to give Adam and LinkedIn management now a break and some time to re-energize all this into a positive outcome.
Nevertheless, I hope to see a resolution soon ... time is running!
Regards
Joris Claeys. – Joris g Claeys, on August 08, 2008 23:55

Adam,
We really appreciate your time and dedication to customer attention. That is relative and recommendable for a big community such as LinkedIn.

You have not responded - here or anyone from LinkedIn to my requests (direct or via forums) - whether LinkedIn can provide a bit more time for implementation of the measurement in question. I think the general conclusion is that we all respect the decision made by LinkedIn and even welcome it to stop the wild grow and abuse, but we are complaining very loudly about the how - not the what. Can you suggest to your group to have the limitation deadline postponed till end of September - at least till mid September - so did we can all take appropriate action. I have been taking those actions, but I need much more time to keep it all in line with MY goals and objectives.

Much appreciate LinkedIn to relaease a public and private announcement ASAP, rather then keep on running around the real issue here and elsewhere.

Thanks.
best regards
Joris Claeys

Managing Director
ACCELERATE Global Supply Chain Solutions

CEO & Founding Partner
MARKETING VILLAGETM – Joris g Claeys, on August 08, 2008 03:36

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! ©