Leaving Linkedin To Linkedin: Voluntarily Closing 4,000 Connection Linkedin Account + 97 User Generated Groups

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim - medXcentral on May 27, 2008 at 2:13pm

I read this as a relatively significant development in the world of social media.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Amitai Givertz on May 27, 2008 at 2:37pm

@ Jim:

I'm interested to know why you think that "this as a relatively significant development in the world of social media." I'm inclined to agree but would love to hear your rationale, unsure of my own.

@ Vincent, three questions:

1. How did you decide that on balance it was better to be lost than found [on LinkedIn]?
2. Who will you assign management of the groups to now that you will no longer be there to do that?
3. Did you make the decision to delete your account alone or did you seek some counsel? If you had some advice can you share what it was?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jim - medXcentral on May 27, 2008 at 5:01pm

Amitai, I'm "relatively" new to the world of social networking and blogging. My rationale may be a bit simple. My gut tells me it's a matter of freedom of choice and the unrestricted ability to network to one's content. Thus the beauty of the Ning platform; Full power to truly network with very few restrictions and no "premium" to pay.

Unfortunately, I am not a LinkedIn expert therefore, I can not speak in depth as to the pro's and con's of their service. I simply know what it felt like the first time I logged in to LinkedIn vs. other networking platforms. It did not "feel" easy (not to an average "joe" like me) to network productively. I did not feel a sense of freedom. Adding any additional restrictions to their networking model is obviously going to have a negative impact.

Vincent's post seems to me to be clear and convincing evidence.... hence my comment. My comment was a bit of a "knee-jerk" reaction... but, I think a real changing of the guard has begun given the freedom of the Ning platform.

That's my penny and a half. :-) I look forward to ongoing feedback to this string.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Vincent Wright on May 27, 2008 at 6:05pm

@Amitai,
Thanks for your questions. Due to time constraints, if I may, I'd like to ask you to check out a post I made on MyLinkedinPowerForum.com, yesterday, entitled "The Audacity of Nope: Evicting Linkedin From MyLinkedinPowerForum.coM" http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyLinkedinPowerForum/message/39459 That's a fairly detailed post covering a broad spectrum of some of the historical issues between Linkedin and me: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyLinkedinPowerForum/message/39459

For your reference, here are the first few paragraphs:
"Reply | Forward | Delete Message #39459 of 39524 < Prev | Next >
Imagine a guest in your home whom you've made every effort to be
courteous and respectful to - watching your every move – with
jaundiced eyes - for 3 years.

Imagine that in the last year the guest continued to stay in your home
but stopped communicating with you – though there is much, much, much
to communicate about.

Even if the guest in your home doesn't think you, as host, are worthy
of a conversation, such a silent guest can make your own home seem
inhospitable to you, the owner. Imagine how creepy that would be and
what it does to your home environment…

Since March 16, 2005, at least 10 Linkedin employees, including
Linkedin's Founders, have voluntarily made themselves my house guests
at www.MyLinkedinPowerForum.com*

That's 99.999% of the lifespan of MyLinkedinPowerForum.com.

My Linkedin house guests invited themselves. None received an
invitation from me.

Over the past 3 years of developing MyLinkedinPowerForum.com, when
Linkedin employees would join, I'd rapidly give them permission to
post unmoderated messages to to MyLinkedinPowerForum.com and any other
of my groups I was aware they'd joined. Several Linkedin employees
readily availed themselves of the opportunity to post unmoderated
messages to MyLinkedinPowerForum.com."
************************************************************************************
If you'd like to read a bit of a "novel" about it, feel free to check it out on the Forum, ok?
************************************************************************************
As for the groups, I won't assign anyone else to manage them
************************************************************************************
As for the decision making, I never blame anyone else for actions I execute...The decision lies with me...
************************************************************************************
Keep STRONG!
Vincent

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff Weidner on May 27, 2008 at 6:53pm

Sometimes when you pull a thread the whole sweater falls apart.
I've often wondered what will become of Linkedin it it's Top users/advocates become dissatisfied.

Seems like LI is adding more and more restrictions or at least enforcing the rules more; especially those of us that are Power Networkers. I know they have declined giving me any more invites cause I have a few too many IDK's 7 total and 3 of them have been resolved and are now first level connections so a Net of 4 but they still will not release any more invites. And yet I've spoken with 5 other users that have over 100 IDKs and they still are getting invites handed to them each and every month. I must be a rabble rouser :-) Luckily, I have found other ways of getting invites to keep the 5200+ growing.

In addition, I think LI needs to get users outside of the Recruiting and Staffing industry to accept it's platform as a business social network. I'd say that 7 out of 10 invites I get weekly are from recruiters or candidate sourcers.

Other than the constant signing in, the intermittent connection status, slow response rates, having to redo search criteria for advanced seaches over and over cause there is no "saved search function", no group functionality other than creating one, lack of and slow communication by their customer service and lack of invitations I don't have any other issues with Linkedin. :-)

Why am I building it on their platform again?...Oh that's right cause everyone else is. Got it?!

Well, Vincent I hope you will at least continue to be apart of RecruitingBlogs.com as you are surely someone to be connected with in the Social Networking world. I only heard of mylinkedinpowerforum a few weeks ago and quickly added it to my daily read list so thanks for your contributions, hopefully you'll continue to be a force in the social media/networking world.


Jeff Weidner
jeffweidnerlinkedin@gmail.com

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Vincent Wright on May 27, 2008 at 7:26pm

Um, Jeff,
Here you start to sound just a wee bit like the latter day version of this guy named "Vincent Wright": "
Other than the constant signing in, the intermittent connection status, slow response rates, having to redo search criteria for advanced seaches over and over cause there is no "saved search function", no group functionality other than creating one, lack of and slow communication by their customer service and lack of invitations I don't have any other issues with Linkedin. :-)"

Thanks for extending your hand here on RecruitingBlogs.com. I do intend to stick around and make a few contributions where I can...

Keep STRONG!
Vincent

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Amitai Givertz on May 28, 2008 at 12:34am

Okay, Vincent...and with respect:

Question One…

I read your post prior to commenting. It prompted my first question, it didn't answer it. No matter. Reading Jeff's reply it occurs to me that for as long as there is juice in LinkedIn perhaps you should continue to squeeze it. I'm having a problem seeing how "on balance" you could argue otherwise.

Like you are now I think, I have reacted to situations in the heat of the moment not only to regret it later but to realize that while I'm still "feeling it" everyone else has moved on. In the end the only one eating crow has been me.

If one is going to affect meaningful change in the face of LinkedIn's passive-aggressive resistance toward you and other vocal “activists” -- anticipating that the majority will continue to squeeze LinkedIn for as long as gives them a drop of something and eventually abandon you on to luxuriate on the moral high-ground – it seems to me that perhaps you should consider the value of sticking it out over packing it in.

The casual observer might think you are not leading but abdicated your leadership. I accept that while a character flaw in some, bloody-minded obstinacy can be endearing to one who similarly confuses that with the virtue of being principled. You have my sympathy.

All that said…thanks for pointing me toward the Yahoo! forum and messages. The thread and points of view give some real context for this conversation. Anyone reading this should check it out as Vincent suggests.

To grind my own axe on your whetstone:

I have given LinkedIn a fair deal of thought over recent weeks. I am intrigued by its default to Web 1.0/walled garden positioning as a response to its users “asserting” their point of view. I spoke with Scott Allen a couple of weeks ago and have had numerous conversations recently with a number of power users who share similar struggles with LinkedIn as you describe. I have to say, overall, they share a different view as to how to move the "evangelists' " agenda forward.

I also want to reconcile what was in 2004 an expectation that LinkedIn would deliver something I realize now it never can, in no small part thanks to the disproportionate number of recruiters who are using LinkedIn, having taken to gaming the system, devaluing its currency of trust to single-use tokens called "invites."

In so doing we have perverted the original premise envisioned in the 2003 paper the Augmented Social Network, for me still one of the most compelling blueprints for the social web. Check it out...

Really, Vincent, I don’t think you should be surprised that “enthusiasts” like you have triggered LinkedIn's immune system anymore than I feel the need to apologize for being one of the LinkedIn gang-bangers who think they need more connections that synaptic knobs to function. After all, if it can never be what it was hoped for, it makes no sense to not exploit LinkedIn for as long as it serves a recruiters purpose, does it?

I suggest that anyone who thinks that LinkedIn will not try to assert political and economic control over the platform is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. LinkedIn is not a social network as it was originally billed so why expect it to meet our needs as if it were one, especially if our collective needs are not social at all but clearly exploitative?

Question two…

Who will manage the groups then if you are not going to assign ownership? Surely you not proposing to throw the baby out with the bath water are you?

Question three…

Well, enough said.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Vincent Wright on May 28, 2008 at 12:37am

@Amitai,
1. I'm looking to save time so, very briefly, after spending 3 years developing myriad Linkedin-centric groups, I've gone back and forth tossing around the pros and cons surrounding the actions I've taken today. Bottom line: whatever others may or may not get out of Linkedin, I've, personally had enough. For me, I'd think myself shortsighted to look at Linkedin as if it were the ultimate in networking. I think it's easy for us to forget that lots of people are still getting business done without using Linkedin. It's an okay platform but, I've never been enamored with the platform. My primary excitement for Linkedin was its original premise. I liked that - a lot. Now, I know that many people can - and do - get a lot of value out of it. However, that does not mean that I must or should stay merely for the sake of staying. Being on Linkedin requires work. And I've spent thousands upon thousands of hours working on Linkedin so, please pardon me for being so direct but, I've invested all I'm going to invest in it. Sometimes we just have to let our no be no and not vacillate for another month, another quarter, another 6 months, another year. Sometimes we just have to know our tolerance for certain things, make a decision, take an action, and live with it.

2. As for the groups: the baby went with the bath water...

3. Let's conclude here, ok?

Thanks,
Vincent Wright

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Amitai Givertz on May 28, 2008 at 5:39am

OK

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Maureen Sharib on May 28, 2008 at 9:41am

I'm sorry to keep beating this horse but I think Ami raises an important point when he says, "The casual observer might think you are not leading but abdicated your leadership".

I have always admired your creativity and can't help but wonder if the long list of groups that you have so carefully maintained hasn't contributed to wearing your patience thin? I ask this because I have found myself in the ever-increasingly taxed position of monitoring over a dozen groups/networks spread over LinkedIn, ERE, Ning, Facebook, Google, MySpace and Yahoo. Forgive me if I forgot any - I very well may have! I take that back - it's probably closer to TWO dozen NOW that I think about it and it makes me squirm rather uncomfortably in my seat thinking about the ones I have not paid much recent attention to! It's a huge responsibility - this birthing babies - and it's not one that goes away.

I think Ami's right - there is a responsibility to membership and at some point I believe the originator (can) fade to black and the group itself take over - or at least another leader emerge who can energetically (and it does take energy, as you know!)continue the trek onward.

If it isn't too late, Vincent, (and I believe it may be) why not put your groups out to be adopted? Please don't think I bring this up because I want any of them - although I admire many of them I have enough of my own! But I think there may be others out here who would welcome the opportunity to take over your fine work.

Just an idea and maybe a solution in times to come.

Respectfully,

Maureen

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Amitai Givertz on May 28, 2008 at 1:59pm

Maureen, I feel Vincent's pain so I will not labor the numerous points that are important to develop if for no other reason than to learn from past mistakes and avoid making them again in places like this one.

I do not have all of the facts so I reserve judgment about tossing the baby out with the bathwater. I will say that it seems on the face of it that to excommunicate all the members of the various groups without recognizing their purpose and investment of time and effort in networking there is as unforgivable as Vincent's catalogue of LinkedIn's damnable acts. I don't understand it. It seems like a double standard.

On the other hand, if the groups in of themselves served no other purpose than to enable the incestuous orgy of getting LinkedIn, who cares? There are enough groups to fill the void.

One imagines that the true value of the groups -- their strategic purpose from the get-go -- was building an opt-in direct mailing list. So perhaps Vincent's deleting the groups but retaining the CSV files/list is as much a calculated decision as it appears to be a resolute standing on principle. Even though using the list now would be spammy, to say the least, one cannot deny its potential value given the right application and careful management.

For anyone reading this -- and to be clear -- I don't know Vincent other than from our being LinkedIn [once] and connected here. He is obviously widely respected by people I too have a high regard for and it would be hard to deny the obvious value many of us have gotten from participating in any of his groups. That alone is reason for me not to speculate as to his motives or good intentions. I'm just thinking out loud -- nothing more, nothing less.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Slouch on May 28, 2008 at 2:16pm

Ami, did you say a link orgy? can you arrange that? like maybe if we all show up dressed as a link ( whatever that looks like) covered as a sheet and then we can drink and be merry and feel that everyone loves us because we are linked. Is that what this thread is about?

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4