"(c) are not a direct competitor of LinkedIn;" Hmm...what if you're indirectly involved in social media development? That doesn't seem fair...

Nicely noticed!

posted August 5, 2008

I think the time is ripe for a competitor of Linked In to step up.
First they limit the number of groups to 50.
Then the new EULA which is draconian.
I would welcome a site that would be similar to Linked In but without these measures.
I did not renew my paid membership here after I read the new EULA and a few of my contacts have downgraded to free accounts.
Linked In has gotten too big for their britches so to speak.
I don't see how they can keep their audience. Look how many questions have been posted just about the reduction in groups!
If someone comes up with a similar site, the money is there for the taking.

Linked In may have just come out with "The New Coke"

posted August 5, 2008

For myself, I will start activly looking for alternatives to LinkedIn due to the new restrictions. It has left a very bad taste in my mouth, and I have sent a message to the administrators indicating that I would be moving away from this platform. I would encourage everyone to complain to LinkedIn management, and look for alternatives.

posted August 5, 2008

Hi, Mike!

Good question!

To those who are investigating an alternative site, please get the word out to the rest of us.

posted August 5, 2008

Maybe a new group is needed! ;)

posted August 5, 2008

Start a "Leaving LinkedIn" group and see how many people join. That would be interesting. Include a group survey to discover how many people are pay members or are free that are in the group.

posted August 5, 2008

If understand Eula correctly, Linked in staff can use, refine and reproduce every single idea we write here on Q&A, and elsewhere, print a book, create a profit, without giving us anything. So its really not a good idea to share here somethinkg from work YOU want to publish (and create a profit from it). This looks a bit ... ufair to me.

posted August 6, 2008

Yes, LinkedIn, like FaceBook and others, owns the rights to all content ever divulged on this site, pretty much forever. Use the site for business networking, and never say or post anything you don't want to see on the National news during your lifetime (or later).

The new EULA will not affect me as I will never post anything on this website that I do not wish to be made public.

posted August 6, 2008

I think this, perhaps, falls under those times when the misdeeds of a few have caused "the man" to create rules to punish the rest of us who were following the rules all along.

Plaxo is another fair site, however, I agree with the previous responder who said, "Yes, there are others, but everyone else is here, so that's why I'm here." Well said!

Perhaps the time has come for LinkedIn to no longer hold the LION's share of professional networking opportunities.

(Little attempt at humor there - get it?)

Links:

• http://www.plaxo.com/

posted August 7, 2008

I want to comment about one thing that Walter Holberg wrote: "Yes, LinkedIn, like FaceBook and others, owns the rights to all content ever divulged on this site, pretty much forever. Use the site for business networking, and never say or post anything you don't want to see on the National news during your lifetime (or later).

The new EULA will not affect me as I will never post anything on this website that I do not wish to be made public."

If anything that you have written, shared or otherwise posted on LinkedIn is already copyrighted, patented or has been published elsewhere, the rights remain your, or that of the entity or person who owns it. Thus, if I share something in an answer to a Q&A that comes from my own work product, that has been published or distributed by me, or is from an article or other web posting by me, its mine.

Any lawyers in the crowd agree/disagree?

posted August 10, 2008

That user agreement is a bunch of crap. Just another American tool to control people.

Just the other day I had sent my concerns regarding the many errors on this website to the Customer Service. Things seem to have improved in the past 24-48 hours. Anyway, I got the following message from "Derek Homann":

"Please note that when I was looking at your profile, I noticed that your picture does not abide by our User Agreement. I wanted to warn you that you may want to change your picture to a picture of yourself. I just thought it would be a good idea to give you the heads up before someone from our team removes your picture and puts a strike against your account. Getting 3 strikes can result in the loss of picture privileges. I want to make sure that doesn't happen to you so that is why I am giving you this warning."

I told him to get real. In Africa, the people are starving. Many nations are at war; innocent men, women and children die every day in the name of war. And this "Derek" is making a big deal over a harmless Om sign on my profile.

In many cases, symbols say more about a person than a picture. Other than that, I refuse to depend the way others see me depend on my looks. Now that is MY user agreement! :-)

LinkedIn also says that we are not allowed to connect with people we do not know in person. Then what's the purpose of this website?

There's a pretty good chance I'll stay here, but LinkedIn can pick up most parts of their user agreement and stick it into their you-know-what. I'd rather keep it real. I have met some cool, REAL people here so that user agreement... I just act as if it doesn't exist. I'm not doing anything illegal or anything else that might harm other LinkedIn users so...

Oh well.

Have a peaceful day all.

:)

posted August 10, 2008

Mike

Thanks for drawing attention to this - I had not spotted a change and will now read in detail.

One thing hits me immediately - Jay mentions that if you post third party copyright to the site then the owner still owns it - true

BUT by agreeing the EULA you are granting LI a licence which you can not grant If LI are then sued for breach of copyright you caused this and you INDEMNIFY LI agains any damages and costs

Great care is needed in future

Peter

posted August 10, 2008

"Any other use of LinkedIn (such as seeking to connect to someone a user does not know ...) is strictly prohibited and a violation of this Agreement"

These days, you can "know" someone via online interaction, through email, various forums/fora, and even other online social networks. If I "know" someone by interacting with them on Facebook, even if I never met them in my life, then in good conscience, I know them well enough to connect on LinkedIn.

I am an open connector on Facebook, it's a good informal way to "meet" people from around the world. Maybe we need to connect there, and superpoke each other a bit, and exchange emails about data analysis (or Lord of the Rings for that matter) so we can say we know each other and legitimately connect on LinkedIn. What are your thoughts?

Links:

• http://michaelmina.info
• http://profile.to/michaelmina

posted August 13, 2008

I talk a bit about this, and something similar with what you ever post in a Yahoo! Group. It seems it's been common practice to have this type of language in many social places, or places where you share your opinion on someone else's platform. See first link to see how this LinkedIn change relates to Yahoo Groups http://tinyurl.com/5z6tfh

Liesl, to see my description of a LION, check out the second link below.

Links:

• http://tinyurl.com/5z6tfh
• http://tinyurl.com/6bddtz

posted August 15, 2008

Like many others, I also see nothing wrong with making as many connections as possible - networking is after all the purpose of this site. And there is a second purpose for many on this site, that is to display their skills (in other words their CV) and to either loook for, or offer work/vacancies, jobs.
Assuming nobody was to post their email address or phone number, assuming that nobody was to contact anyone they did not know personally, we could then wave goodbye to the opportunities that LI exposure offers to those offering work/vacancies/opportunities and those seeking them.
Many candidates for vacancies have been and will be found via LI, many career opportunites have come people's way and they might not even have realised it was via a 2nd or 3rd connection this new career opportunity, this new position/job and increase in salary came about.
To avoid spam it is very easy to set up a LI only email and to ignore spam, but for those who are interested in job opportunities and networking beyond their immediate neighbourhood it continues to be vital to have some kind of email address displayed or to allow contact with people who are outside their local sphere.
I have myself seen people who say they are looking for a career move and who might be the perfect candidate for a role but who cannot be contacted because indirect contact is not allowed and they have not displayed an email address.
Should email addresses and indirect contact now be totally outlawed it would completely disable LI as a tool to make contacts for new work opportunites across the globe other than in your direct neighbourhood.

posted August 16, 2008

This was inevitable and expected.

When a community gets to a certain level there simply has to be heightened rules and measures to keep everyone in check, this applies to both online and offline environments. Every social community has done this, LinkedIn is just following the trend, and rightfully so.

I use LinkedIn a few times a week and I don't pay for it. I never will pay for it. I use it to locate possible clients, to read up on current events (Q&A) and to maintain an online resume. It's become so big now that I automatically expect advertising, I expect there to be more rules. LinkedIn is a great service and as much as I'd like to jump to any number of competitors, like Spire.com, it's just not going to happen anytime soon. Everyone is on LinkedIn, that's why we all like it.

I understand that LinkedIn is a now a thriving business and as such they must have some kind of dynamic business model that changes and fluctuates, just like MySpace and Facebook, depending on the number of users. Whatever changes they made to the End User License Agreement was probably in direct relation to their business model, we just have to take it on board and roll with it.

posted August 5, 2008

As others have said, it is the cost of being part of a successful social network.

LI has to be more vigilant as it grows. Much of the new EULA is simply a stricter statement of rules already on board. It has long been a rule that one could not have more than one active profile. I've noticed, though, for a long time, that there are many users with 2 or 3 or 4.

It has also long been a rule that personal information like email addresses isn't supposed to be posted as part of someone's profile; yet open networkers often do this.

The group rule is a tad strict, but there has been a large scale proliferation of new groups on Linkedin and these can be difficult for a social network to manage.

Having rules about selling profiles and about age limits just makes sense.

I am okay with the new EULA.

posted August 5, 2008

Who cares? Does anyone actually pay attention to a EULA on a social network? Let the censures do their worst, soon everyone on the network will look sort of like your typical corporate environment. They all look the same, think the same and fail the same.

posted August 5, 2008

Look I have the E-mail address of all the people who were so kind to link with me, So if Linkedin want to reduce the groups, let them and lets hope it does not come back to bite them....

I like Linkedin, so I will stay, if we are going to change we can only do it from the inside.

james hayes

books@jameshayes.ie

Links:

• http://www.jameshayes.ie
• http://lulu.com/jameshayes

posted August 6, 2008

Rather than create a stricture EULA, LinkedIn needs to enforce the rules they already have in place.

IMO LIONs are going to destroy this site. The site was meant as a way for professionals to expand their contact base through their CURRENT CONTACTS. It was meant as a way to get a warm introduction through someone you already know.

Instead people are making it a contest to see who can get the most in their network. Accepting invitations from anyone, even those you don't know goes 100% against the intent of the site.

LinkedIn is allowing these practices to severely diminish the value of the site, and if the intend on keeping this site competitive, they need to take action now to correct it.

posted August 6, 2008

The most is 50 groups. My eyes are sored seeing it.

posted August 7, 2008

I see very little in the new agreement that wasn't already in place. It's just been codified in one place and it is therefore much easier to see what is and isn't permitted. For example, I see complaints about the restrictions on photographs, but those restrictions were there from the very first day when LI decided to allow photographs. They want to project a professional image distinct from a Facebook, so even allowing photographs was a big step. And they are within their rights to maintain a control over the image of their own site. The user agreement merely states what was already policy.

If you don't like these kind of restrictions, then you don't have to search far for alternatives. Try Facebook.

posted August 10, 2008

I applaud any attempt to put a leash on the LIONs. I’m actually a dog. A real basset hound. Woof! My owner signed me up and I was immediately able to link with a bunch of adults who collect connections like Yu-Gi-Oh cards. What is the point?

The point is to get e-mails entitled, “Free $25 ::To all of my LinkedIn connections,” from these so-called LIONs. Gee, how special.

Now we’re limited to 50 groups. Oh deary, dear! What contribution could you possibly make to even a third of those groups?

Shall we address the competition to answer as many questions as possible, whether or not the LION has anything meaningful to share? Let’s not, because it’s just sad.

Get another hobby LIONs. Collecting people, groups and answers is just sad.

posted August 10, 2008

"Any other use of LinkedIn (such as seeking to connect to someone a user does not know or to use LinkedIn as a means of generating revenue through the sale of contacts or information to others) is strictly prohibited and a violation of this Agreement."

A good first step to clean the place up would be for LinkedIn to close the account of anyone with over 1000 contacts. Those just have to be LION spammers.

posted August 10, 2008

Wow, they have an EULA? I have never read it, though I should, since I am abiding by its tenets. Anyway, I can see some of this happening due in part to Linked In's appeal and growth. It has absolutely no effect on me except I cannot put Astroboy as my picture.

posted August 10, 2008

So basically this is "play in my sandbox, play by my rules..."

Ok. I understand most of the rationale for the CYA factors (we will not be responsible for what you put up, but we can use it any way we like.)

But WHY the insistence on a face as a graphical representation of you? I am face blind--I can not tell or remember the differences between faces any more than you can recall and accurately recognize the differences between three similarly colored rocks.

Hmmmm..maybe this calls for ADA?

Links:

• http://www.choisser.com/faceblind/

posted August 11, 2008

The part that bothers me the most is that LI can use anything that is posted or sent through the LI system without any consideration to the originator. This automatic license granting ensures that I will never put anything on LI that might be of real ($) value.

posted August 11, 2008

OK, before I can answer, will someone tell me what "LION" stands for? Thanks.

posted August 12, 2008