Frank M
Professional IT Software Architect. LION|TopLinked|Invites Wecolme|15K+
What is the purpose of the 50 groups limit ?
Recently I got a letter from LI stating: "As an active member of LinkedIn Groups ... 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. ..."
Who is benefiting from that and why ? Personally I just feel that I am being harassed by LI.
The easy solution would be to move to Marzar, which has better functionality or Plaxo/ecademy which has similar functionality. However as many of you I am Locked-in as I have a lot of friends and connections (and a history with them) here on LI.
What is your views ?
PS The best way to discuss this would really be in forum created and maintained by LI, but this is not existing.
Clarification added August 4, 2008:
See also the two questions:
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/using-linkedIn/ULI/289829-10336924
Answers (10)
Sheilah E
Owner, ★SME Management:.......... Business Management and Accounting Consultant
Best Answers in: Using LinkedIn (885), Professional Networking (39), Staffing and Recruiting (30), Accounting (20), Government Policy (18), Job Search (17), Career Management (15), Ethics (15), Business Development (14), Customer Service (12), Mentoring (12), Education and Schools (10), Computers and Software (10), Property Law (9), Organizational Development (9), Small Business (9), Personnel Policies (8), Criminal Law (8), Advertising (8), Internet Marketing (8), Labor Relations (7), Non-profit Management (7), Starting Up (6), Blogging (6), Purchasing (5), Government Services (5), Compensation and Benefits (5), Tax Law (5), Lead Generation (5), Planning (5), Manufacturing (5), Quality Management and Standards (5), Web Development (5), Corporate Law (4), Direct Marketing (4), Writing and Editing (4), Corporate Governance (4), Change Management (4), Communication and Public Speaking (4), Professional Organizations (4), Software Development (4), Facilities Management (3), Regulation and Compliance (3), Travel Tools (3), Freelancing and Contracting (3), Auditing (3), Venture Capital and Private Equity (3), Economics (3), International Law (3), Internationalization and Localization (3), Treaties, Agreements and Organizations (3), Market Research and Definition (3), Business Plans (3), Information Security (3), Business Dining and Entertainment (2), Resume Writing (2), Government Contracts (2), Employment and Labor Law (2), Customer Relationship Management (2), Sales Techniques (2), Business Analytics (2), Derivatives Markets (2), Inventory Management (2), Project Management (2), Supply Chain Management (2), Individual Insurance (2), Personal Taxes (2), Personal Real Estate (2), Product Design (2), Pricing (2), Incorporation (2), E-Commerce (2), Enterprise Software (2), Computer Networking (2), Telecommunications (2), Wireless (2), Air Travel (1), Certification and Licenses (1), Occupational Training (1), Conference Planning (1), Budgeting (1), Corporate Debt (1), Financial Regulation (1), Risk Management (1), Exporting/Importing (1), Offshoring and Outsourcing (1), Customs, Tariffs and Taxes (1), Contracts (1), Finance and Securities Law (1), Viral Marketing (1), Graphic Design (1), Public Relations (1), Hedge Funds (1), Non-profit Fundraising (1), Philanthropy (1), Personal Debt Management (1), Retirement and Estate Planning (1), Wealth Management (1), Branding (1), Positioning (1), Energy and Development (1), Biotech (1), Information Storage (1)
Hi Frank,
How is that harassment? The groups are completely out of control, people joining hundred and thousands of them. The purpose of groups is so like minded people can access one another more easily and also communicate and share knowledge. Unfortunately, far too many people have abused the groups by joining everyone they could find, BUT not to share knowledge, not to meet others with similar interest. No they did it to grow their network. That is abuse of the groups (in my opinion).
Let's be realistic, no one can actively participate and really contribute value to 50 groups, much less 500 groups.
I see the 50 as being a high number, not a low one.
Sheilah
Chris W
Country Manager & Professional Business Consultant (カントリーマネージャー) [26 Years experience in Japan]
Of all the hundreds of groups I am part of I have to say less than 1% contribute absolutely anything. That in mind I would gladly get rid of 99% of the groups I am currently joined with. Hopefully LI will remove 99.9% of the current 108,684 different groups. It's just pathetic to have so many similar groups. Just do a search for "Japan" and you get 181 hits and at least 100 are essentially the same group. That goes for all the Open Network groups as well. Maybe a filter to stop making pathetic groups with a non-existent moderator and one that nobody contributes to would be the correct way to stop any form of abuse. Fix the source rather than the outcome.
Links:
Daniel J
Division Leader at Primerica Financial Services and Owner, David Gordon Productions
Best Answers in: Using LinkedIn (886), Customer Service (19), Professional Networking (15), Government Policy (9), Business Development (9), Education and Schools (8), Ethics (7), Accounting (4), Economics (4), Writing and Editing (4), Career Management (4), Professional Organizations (4), Starting Up (4), Purchasing (3), Job Search (3), Personnel Policies (3), Staffing and Recruiting (3), Criminal Law (3), Intellectual Property (3), Property Law (3), Advertising (3), Sales Techniques (3), Bond Markets (3), Packaging and Labeling (3), Project Management (3), Personal Real Estate (3), Computers and Software (3), Web Development (3), Occupational Training (2), Risk Management (2), Exporting/Importing (2), Internationalization and Localization (2), Tax Law (2), Internet Marketing (2), Business Analytics (2), Corporate Governance (2), Non-profit Management (2), Quality Management and Standards (2), Personal Investing (2), Retirement and Estate Planning (2), Wealth Management (2), E-Commerce (2), Databases (2), Business Insurance (1), Regulation and Compliance (1), Travel Tools (1), Certification and Licenses (1), Freelancing and Contracting (1), Mentoring (1), Budgeting (1), Corporate Debt (1), Venture Capital and Private Equity (1), Government Contracts (1), Compensation and Benefits (1), International Law (1), Treaties, Agreements and Organizations (1), Customs, Tariffs and Taxes (1), Antitrust Law (1), Contracts (1), Corporate Law (1), Graphic Design (1), Public Relations (1), Lead Generation (1), Change Management (1), Organizational Development (1), Equity Markets (1), Supply Chain Management (1), Individual Insurance (1), Personal Debt Management (1), Branding (1), Distribution (1), Market Research and Definition (1), Pricing (1), Communication and Public Speaking (1), Green Business (1), Blogging (1), Computer Networking (1), Information Security (1), Telecommunications (1)
For the life of me I cannot understand why this is such a big deal. What is your purpose in being a member of a group? Is it to network one on one with people who share similar interests or background with you? Or are you simply collecting trophies? Unless you can convince me that you are contributing in a meaningful way to all the groups you belong to, I cannot sympathize.
I joined several groups a while ago looking forward to networking with people who share my interests, but was disappointed to find them populated almost exclusively with LIONs trolling for connections. Such groups are almost completely useless. Hopefully this policy will restore those groups to their intended purpose.
This is a clear sign, that group managers are not doing their jobs, I am afraid. They accept and tolerate invalid memberships. Is the total limit a solution? No, some very active people will suffer (as usual). I think this also maybe a good idea to make more than a limit groups available when paid. In suh a case we would see, whether is it really valuable to join so many groups.
Frank,
I like to answer this question of yours based on the answer I gave to an excellent question by Mr. Grayson Walker.
The question was closed and evaluated by the time I came to post my answer. Thanks however for forwarding my answer to the questioner. I hope it was useful to him.
The question can be viewed at:
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/using-linkedIn/ULI/272134-207877?searchIdx=4&sik=1215884514433&goback=.asr_1_1215884514433
My answer to Mr. Grayson Walker is:
Grayson,
A very interesting question indeed as it can be approached from mathematical/statistical/biological/psychological angles. Iam sure a lot of LIONs (LinkedIn Open Networkers) will get awakened when they read your question! Maybe they are already roaring!!! The restriction will certainly hurt those who did all the hard work by building thousands of connections through building rapport on LinkedIn – Answers, Groups, Recommendations etc.
Let:
A1 = Average number of people a person KNOWS AND TRUSTS at work place
A2 = Average number of people a person KNOWS AND TRUSTS at university
A3 = Average number of people a person KNOWS AND TRUSTS at pre-university/high school
A4 = Average number of people a person KNOWS AND TRUSTS online (Take only popular sites like LinkedIn, MySpace, Yahoo! etc)
A5 = Average number of people a person KNOWS AND TRUSTS through any other means (example: family, neighborhood, sports clubs, other learning institutes attended etc)
Then the value of the population display icon for a LinkedIn member will be:
P = n1A1+ n2A2+ n3A3+ n4A4+ n5A5
Where
‘n1’ is the average number of places a person works,
‘n2’ is the average number of universities a person studies,
‘n3’ is the average number of pre-universities/high schools a person studies,
‘n4’ is the average number of websites where a person connects with people,
‘n5’ is the average number of other means through which a person connects with people
Iam using the word ‘KNOWS AND TRUSTS’ as I think it expresses correctly the deciding factor for making a LinkedIn connection.
Whether ‘P’ amounts to the number 500 or at least is a value near to 500 is something that we will know only after the data is collected for A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, n1, n2, n3, n4, n5.
One way to calculate ‘P’ is to collect data for all the above variables from the members through a LinkedIn Survey. The result we get for ‘P’ thus gets determined by the LinkedIn members themselves.
I don’t know if LinkedIn arrived at the number ‘500’ based on calculations as above mentioned or through any other similar methods.
I don’t know if they have provided a mathematical/statistical explanation for justifying the number ‘500’.
Another way to calculate ‘P’ would be to find out how many people on an average, the human brain can strongly remember for a period of 60-70 years. I have taken people within the age 70. This method however won’t produce consistent results as the memory capacity of the human brain can vary from person to person based on so many biological factors. It can also vary with ageing.
Thanks.
Mukesh
Frank, now coming back to your question:
I would say that the maximum total number of groups, a person must be allowed to subscribe on LinkedIn is:
P = n1A1+ n2A2+ n3A3+ n4A4+ n5A5
Links:
Clarification added August 5, 2008:
CONTINUED DUE TO WORD LIMIT RESTRICTION:
This should be the maximum number because there is a professional courtesy (though not mandatory) of joining at least one group created by every single person in your first degree population.
Sometimes a first degree connection may not create a group but recommends you a group created by one of his connections (your 2nd degree or 3rd degree). In these cases the count is 1 for that direct connection even though he didn’t create any group.
This method also has the advantage of providing all the essential groups that a professional needs on LinkedIn – organization groups, university groups, domain expertise related groups etc.
This method also prevents a member from collecting rubbish groups which all end up in rubbishville!!!
If there is really some great relevant group but the owner is not in your network, then in such cases you will need to join the owner’s network as a first or second or third degree. Thus again whatever I said in the above paragraphs will come into play.
This is because it is really absurd to join a person’s group and remain outside his network.
You can ask what if some people in your first degree create more than a group and ask you to join all of them? Then shouldn’t ‘P’ be the minimum number of groups allowed?
Again I would say, there must some moderation and there must be a purpose in joining the groups. Like I said earlier if ‘P’ is the maximum number, it will still cover all the essential groups, assorted, that a professional really needs.
Mukesh
Stu L
VP Business Development and Owner, Southern Lending Solutions LLC, Equipment and Technology Financing
Best Answers in: Venture Capital and Private Equity (1), Risk Management (1), Internationalization and Localization (1), Sales Techniques (1), Professional Organizations (1)
Frank, I agree with Sheilah. If you are there to meet people and share info and make contacts, then there's no way you can do it with 50 groups or more even if you did it as your full time job. Being a well known, well regarded, influential resource (whether you know others and others know you) in 4 or 5 groups is a much better use of your time, especially if you are trying to convert contacts you make into business for yourself or your firm. Just my 2 cents.
Stu
P.S. If I saw someone was in that many groups, I'd just think they are trolling for connections and not really looking to network with anyone to truly generate business for both parties....
Murli Menon 2600+ T
Author- "ZeNLP-the power to relax" (LION/Mylink500) "Stress management through ZeNLP meditation" Zen+NLP=ZeNLP
Best Answers in: Using LinkedIn (3), Travel Tools (2), Mentoring (1), Budgeting (1), Career Management (1), Professional Networking (1), Computer Networking (1)
I think 50 groups are OK
It is the 10 questions per month which should be increased
as yahoo answers offers the same service without limits
Links:
John L. E
♣ LION@LOCRIS.CO.UK ♣ 30K FCMI FIMIS FIBC MBCS CITP MIoD MCIPS ♣ Interim Director ♣ Change Management ♣ TOPLIN
Best Answers in: Using LinkedIn (4), Job Search (1), Professional Networking (1)
I agree. email me.
johnev4ns@aol.com
Francois E. A
Consultant, Trainer and Business Coach
Best Answers in: Certification and Licenses (1), Compensation and Benefits (1), International Law (1), Commodity Markets (1)
Once again, LI is failing to bring the appropriate answer. The groups' mess is not about the number we are belonging to, but as others suggested, the lack of control when forming one. It is absurd to see so many groups regarding a company or alumni association for instance and wonder which one is the right one. They should better clean up the groups rather than, once again, hit on the active networkers...
LI is the largest network, but by far not the best one. I am using in parallel Xing (that is in the top three worldwide in terms of number of members), that is much better at all level. Feel free to join me there: http://www.xing.com/go/invita/369754.
Links:
As a newer user to LinkedIn, here is my opinion. I feel the groups moderator should more closely watch who joins their group. For example, why is a women's executive group polulated by so many men and vice versa?
As well, there seems to be a group for quite a few needless things - i.e. if you are left-handed and have red hair (not meaning to offend if you are both of these). Is this group really necessary?
Seems to me that the limits need to be looked at by those that ruh LinkedIn to control the groups more!!
