LINKEDIN: Another reason NOT to use your employer’s email adress on LinkedIn

Monday, May 17, 2010

http://www.portfolio.com/companies-executives/2010/03/31/non-solicit-suit-alleges-violations-on-linkedin#ixzz0nDJODrSE  

LinkedIn to a Lawsuit
by Jim Hammerand Mar 31 2010

*** begin quote ***

As case law develops, courts could decide whether the online connections employees make at work belong to the employee or employer. Courts, Cotter said, have “a lot of discretion” in deciding whether comparable customer lists and contacts are trade secrets and whether social-networking activity can be covered by competitive agreements.

*** end quote ***

Clearly, if you have a non-compete, then you’ve got a problem.

But, it can’t hurt to make sure that your LinkedIn account looks “personal”.

I’d go so far as to say you should NEVER use social networking from the company’s hardware, software, or network.

With 3G, 4G, and public wifis for networking. With iphone, ipad, netbooks, and cheap notebooks. With Open Source Software, as opposed to the corporate Microsoft suite. All demonstrate the difference.

imho.

Remember the sources of my education: I’m just a fat old white guy injineer with Law from watching Judge Judy, Medical from Doctor Phil, Building from Holmes on Homes, and Investing from Bernie Made-off.

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: Offhandedly, just ask folks for help

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

http://www.marketingexperiments.com/blog/general/connecting-on-linkedin-quality-or-quantity.html/comment-page-1#comment-2110

Connecting on LinkedIn: Quality or quantity?
Anna Jacobson February 4th, 2009

*** begin quote ***

However, in the middle of a detailed post about creating community on LinkedIn, F. John Reinke, offhandedly comments, “Create a LinkedIn group (It takes weeks to get this done)…”

Remember that most of the people writing about the benefits of LinkedIn have, in truth, been poking around LinkedIn answering questions and making connections for months, possibly years, before they posted their article making you feel inadequate, behind the curve, and left out.

*** end quote ***

I have been blundering about with LinkedIn since they hit prime time. I’ve grouched about their failure to be responsive to suggestions and down right hostile to their early adopters and champions. I’ve wish for a competitor to arise — I’ve dubbed it NiDeknil as a placeholder for all the things LinkedIn could have been. At no time have I ever tried to make anyone feel “feel inadequate, behind the curve, and left out”; if anything, that’s how I feel about my relationship with LinkedIn. I can’t point out many more early advocates who have been bludgeoned by LinkedIn. Figuratively speaking. The biggest misconception that I try to communicate is that “LinkedIn is NOT networking”. AND, anyone, who needs help, just has to ask! No charge for “premium membership” unlike LinkedIn.

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: Scammer sighted on LinkedIn

Saturday, August 29, 2009

OVER ON Vincent Wright’s MyLinkedinPowerForum

*** begin quote ***

I googled him and found out that in addition of being a LI member (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mr-isaac-howells/13/7b1/35 and http://www.linkedin.com/pub/isaac-howells/12/b23/944 where you will notice that the same person works in two different African countries and has no connections), I also found out the Spanish based version of http://www.fraudwatchers.org/forums/index.php where warnings have been issued about this person being part of a worldwide fraud attempt.

*** end quote ***

The scammers “DO” social networking too. Forewarned is forearmed!
# # # # #


LINKEDIN: Notes don’t seem to be working?

Saturday, February 14, 2009

I added a note to a contact, saved it, and xed out. Coming back the note is “gone”?

Any ideas?

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: Groups killed

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

LinkedIn is further mudding the waters with group. Without disclosure or discussion, it is making unilateral changes. It no longer passes through to the underlying Yahoo Group. And, the management tools are gone. It makes it just worthless.

Oh well. When the LinkedIn competitor comes along maybe they will treat the PAYING users as if they mattered.

*** begin quote ***

First, thank you for managing your group on LinkedIn. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you devote to your members, and we know they value it. Together you have made Groups one of the top features on LinkedIn.

This Friday, we will be adding several much-requested features to your group:

Discussion forums: Simple discussion spaces for you and your members. (You can turn discussions off in your management control panel if you like.)
Enhanced roster: Searchable list of group members.
Digest emails: Daily or weekly digests of new discussion topics which your members may choose to receive. (We will be turning digests on for all current group members soon, and prompting them to set to their own preference.)
Group home page: A private space for your members on LinkedIn.
We’re confident that these new features will spur communication, promote collaboration, and make your group more valuable to you and your members. We hope you can come by LinkedIn on Friday morning to check out the new functionality and get a group discussion going by posting a welcome message.

Sincerely,
The LinkedIn Groups Team

*** end quote ***

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: Groups “broken”; where competition!

Saturday, August 16, 2008

http://getsatisfaction.com/linkedin/topics/new_linkedin_group_issues

*** begin quote ***

New LinkedIn Group Issues
LinkedIn just changed (translation: “broke”) many things about LinkedIn Groups

*** end quote ***

Unfortunately, when LinkedIn went for the big buxs, it showed the Leadership’s true colors. It tells you a lot about people. How do they follow their principles. I’ve become unenamoured with LinkedIn over the years. When they were struggling for traction, it was come one and come all. Then, they got testy with the super connectors. Then, they got testy with me, even though I am a paying customer, not a super connector, and not an open networker. Then, the final straw, they lawyered up on Vincent Wright, one of their early and most popular “champions”. He did more support then they did … for free. He single handly did more to keep their start ont he rise than they did. He finally got disgusted.

The LinkedIn folks better hop that no comptitor targets them. I think they’ll be lunch. No one is suggesting that they don’t have the right to make their rules. But, a little openness, gratitude, and appreciation of why they got all those big buxs.

It wasn’t them. It was all the Vincent Wrights, and a grazillion little people.

Where is the competition?

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: LinkedIn deleting people’s accounts?

Thursday, July 17, 2008

http://www.jibberjobber.com/blog/2008/07/17/linkedin-maintenance-do-this-right-now-or-else

LinkedIn Maintenance: Do This Right Now (or else?)
July 17th, 2008

*** begin quote ***

I got an e-mail from Susan Ireland, at the Job Lounge. She asked me if I knew anything about LinkedIn deleting people’s accounts… I’ve heard a little about this, but mostly just hand-slapping for looking like spammers. Getting an account deleted can be a huge problem, especially as you use LinkedIn more.

*** end quote ***

LinkedIn deleting people’s accounts?

Wow, that’s news!

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: The 3 minute LinkedIn Overview video

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

The LinkedIn Blog: The 3 minute LinkedIn Overview video

Posted using ShareThis


LINKEDIN: LinkedIn has raised $53 million

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/17/linkedin-raises-53-million-at-billion-dollar-valuation

LinkedIn Closes Its Round; Got That Billion Dollar Valuation
Mark Hendrickson

*** begin quote ***

LinkedIn has raised $53 million from Bain Capital Ventures, Sequoia Capital, Greylock Partners, and Bessemer Ventures. The investment values the business social network at just over $1 billion.

*** end quote ***

Yeah, LinkedIn wasn’t doing anything!

As a commenter recently and harshly took me to task about!

So, do you think those folks GOT ANYTHING for their 53 Mil?

:-(

Now what will they try to do to the users. Still no competitor in sight to knock them off.

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: LinkedIn continues to demonstrate it’s ‘tin ear’

Friday, May 23, 2008

Another LION: Linkedin’s Ignorance Of Networking + Keep STRONG!
By WrightHandBlogger

*** begin quote ***

So, imagine my surprise when Linkedin Corporation wrote to me today telling me that they’d suspended my group called “Keep STRONG!” – ostensibly for this well-worn-out old Linkedin reason: “The LinkedIn Groups feature is meant for like-minded peers who have a similar base of professional experience. Group members should have some structured
off-line association with other professionals. We do not feel your group goes with bringing like minded professionals together in the LinkedIn manner. We have suspended this group at this time.”

Here is the group description I wrote for the group “Keep STRONG!”: “It is NOT your job to help those who seek to drag you down, to weaken you. That’s their job. Your job is to acquire as much encouragement as is needed for you to have a healthy life. YOUR job is to Keep STRONG!!”

{Extraneous Deleted}

Thanks,
Vincent Wright

*** end quote ***

LinkedIn continues to demonstrate it’s ‘tin ear’ to it’s champions. They better hope the next better idea doesn’t come along until after they cash out.

:-(

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: Old messages appear ‘gone’

Friday, April 25, 2008

I’m a paying customer of LinkedIn. (Not that that seems to matter much.)

I send a few emails to folks from time to time in support of their jobsearch efforts. (Offer help, cite some resources, give a few urls, and wish them bona fortuna.) I used to just call up an old one and steal the usual passages. Then, customize a little and shoot it off. LinkedIn doesn’t offer drafts or templates.

When I went to do that, (I guess for the first time since the redesign.) SHAZAAM, there not where they used to be.

Maybe they’ve just moved?

I read the LinkedIn faqs and it looks like they went to the bit bucket.

Argh!!

Copying an email to yourself isn’t even a future workaround because the email is kept in the LinkedIn playpen.

Sooo, ti seems like you have to cut and paste an email to yourself to compensate.

Arghh!

So I shot this off to “Customer Service”: (BY THE WAY, did anyone notice that ‘customer service’ is now a new and different domain from LinkedIn? That is ‘linkedin.custhelp.com’! Outsourced to a vendor in India maybe?)

*** begin quote ***

I used to be able to see my old messages that I wrote, received archived, invitations and such. Since the redesign, I can’t find any of that. Are they now gone?

It would have been nice to give a ‘head’s up’. So I could have saved them. As a paying customer, I don’t expect surprises. If I was a freeloader, I’d have less of a squawk.

*** end quote ***

Upon submitting, you have to put in contact information? Interesting. This leads credence to the ‘outsourced customer service’ impression. Why would they need that input again?

Argh!

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: Adds “companies” as entities?

Friday, March 21, 2008

http://www.linkedin.com/companies/1703/Comcast?trk=pro_other_cmpy

I looked at the one for Comcast. And “new employees” are four months old. No rss feeds. And, I don’t see a lot of use. Maybe Business Week (the sponsor) will.

?

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: LinkedIn’s magic millions

Friday, January 4, 2008

FROM AN EXCHANGE ON CREATING LINKEDIN ACCOUNTS

*** begin quote ***

Perhaps this is the answer to the “quantity” types. You too could have
a few thousand meaningless networking contacts. And, at the same time
help LinkedIn reach 100 million accounts.

*** end quote ***

From: XXX
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 7:46 PM
Subject: LinkedIn’s magic millions

Wicked :)

*** my response ***

Glad you like that idea.

Can I interest you in the 10, 100, 1000, or our 10,000 contacts plan. I figure I can put up a script that will generate them as a service to our “quantity brethren”. What should I charge? $1/contact? 2?

Maybe I can have a pseudo identity with a pseudo army of contacts?

You really shouldn’t encourage me. Next I’ll have a deck and start looking for VC money.

:-)

Happy New Year,
fjohn

# – # – #

I wonder what an army of ghouls is worth. Time to update the taxonomy. What do spies call their alternate identities?

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: Digital Nuisance

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

http://www.jibberjobber.com/blog/archives/1060

Resolve To Not Be A Digital Nuisance In 2008
January 1st, 2008

*** begin quote ***

Improving communication is key to our career success, right? Here are 08 things for ‘08 to help us communicate better on the digital playground.

*** end quote ***

One can only hope that one avoid annoying people. After all, we need them to do the “heavy lifting”.

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: More characters for our professional endorsements

Saturday, December 29, 2007

>PLEASE give us 500 characters for our professional endorsements!

May I suggest a tiny url as a continuation to what you really want to say?

*** begin quote ***
Joe Jones is a real gem. Blah blah blah
(continued at http://tinyurl.com/yo6d5y)
*** end quote ***

That uses up your last 31 characters, but you have an unlimited amount of space somewhere.

With Google pages, ISPs, WSPs, giving the stuff away it shouldn’t be a big deal?

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: that circle-R next to the LinkedIn logo

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

http://www.trademork.com/in

12.27.07 | No Comments

On December 11, 2007, business networking company LinkedIn Corporation filed to protect the trademark in in relation to their popular business networking website.

*** begin quote ***

So, you thought that circle-R next to the LinkedIn logo was only for the whole name. Well, now it appears it applies to just the “in” part. The abbreviated LinkedIn logo (seen in the above link) is now showing up on sites across the web, including that of a prominent Presidential candidate (scroll down), and on LinkedIn’s own merchandise. Makes sense. With one little word and a cute Web 2.0 logo, everyone in the world can see that you’re “in” the club, “in” the know…and just plain “in”.

*** end quote ***

Argh!

LinkedIn groups are basically under the bulls eye.

Trust no one! Ever.

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: Unresponsive because the email address was … strange!

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

FROM AN EMAIL ABOUT “LIVELINESS”

*** begin quote ***

I don’t know about the other 63% of your contacts, obviously, but as for myself, I didn’t respond because the email address was V2Y2R0N27RHJ6Y and even though the message looked authentic, that email looked hokey.

*** end quote ***

OK, point well taken. I’m going to be moving my emails off Comcast and onto my own domain (i.e., reinke.cc). In the spring, I’ll test again and see if that makes a difference. :-)

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: never ever use your current employer’s email in LinkedIn

Sunday, December 16, 2007

FROM A LINKEDIN CONTACT ABOUT “LIVELINESS”

*** begin quote ***

I decided to perform a small test of my own today… by simply sending out recommendation requests to those people I have actually worked with (as opposed to all the recruiters that are in my network). I’ll et you know the final results… but I’m already getting replies from people who have taken over colleagues email addresses at companies asking me who I am!!! Not a real good sign.

*** end quote ***

Amazing what you find out when you look!

Here’s another reason why you should never ever use your current employer’s email in LinkedIn.

I rant about this all the time. Not your current employers! Not your ISP! Not gmail, yahoo, or whatever! It has to be from your own domain name.

Like “reinke.cc”!

No excuses. No reason not to. You’re supposed to be a pro, professional, it can be done for well under $100 bucks a year. It’s probably in the 60$/year range. That’s a little more than a dollar a week.

There’s no excuse for it.

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: “Ron Paul” is also on LinkedIn

Sunday, December 16, 2007

FROM AN MLPF EMAIL

>Re: Hilary For President
>Posted by: “Verdegem, Luc”
>Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:58 pm (PST)
>Sorry for this question,
>I was just wondering why there are not more “smart” politicians that use

Interesting.

“Ron Paul” is also on LinkedIn. I’m one of “his” loons. But, I would know more think of doing the old Star Trek Vulcan Mind Meld with that pseudo person

(I have to update my taxonomy of “Trolls you find on LinkedIn” with a new one “political alter egos”! — POLITICIANS. Sort of the opposite of ABILLGATES that high value target. This is imho a low value target.)

LINKEDIN: Updated taxonomy of LinkedIn “identities”
http://reinkefaceslife.com/2007/11/29/linkedin-updated-taxonomy-of-linkedin-identities
http://tinyurl.com/25b5mw

Those have to be a violation of the LinkedIn TOS, contrary to the spirit of LinkedIn, and injecting your politics into an inappropriate venue. IMHO.

I can’t see any upside to doing this. What’s next? Linking to your favorite cartoon character.

(Shaking my virtual, not virtuous, head in amazement.)

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: LinkedIn is dysfunctional

Saturday, December 15, 2007

*** begin quote ***

Please note: You are now required to enter an email address to send invitations from this page because several recipients of your invitations indicated they don’t know you. This safeguard is in place to prevent users from receiving unwanted invitations from people they don’t know. Customer Service can remove the restriction at anytime once you indicate that you understand this policy.

*** end quote ***

I don’t know what they are talking about. I don’t invite ever since Linkedin instituted their dumb “5 I don’t knows and your suspended”. I only accept invites.

The funnier think is that I am not, nor have I ever been, what they hate … an “open” networker.

?

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: in LinkedIn you need to connect to a few “mega connectors” to be “findable”

Saturday, December 15, 2007

FROM AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH A LINKEDIN CONTACT

>and LinkedIn stays on my personal e-mail which is second priority. I’m cleaning e-mail today .

Well, just as long as you remember, that one’s first duty, the 2008 Prime Directive, is to find your “next” job! Too many times, as you’ve probably heard me blog, I hear my turkeys tell me that “they were too busy with work to … …”. With unfortunate results. Both in family life and earning power.

>I agree with your blog comments. I think one interesting question is how “linked” are we through affiliations.

I think that “affiliations” can lead to “linking”.

> I would not hesitate to recommend you or introduce you, based upon my view of your work on XXXXXXXXXX and your writings I’ve seen.

Thanks for the kind words. If one can’t be “good”, be “persistent”? :-)

>I wouldn’t offer the same to someone just because they XXXXXXXXXXX.

No, but I bet you might be inclined to take a Lucht-style networking meeting with them. See that is the theory of the “granfalloon” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granfalloon where one can parlay an “imaginary connection” into a chance to create a weak link. Which then, over time, you can build to a strong one. I used that extensively first in my career, and later in selling.

>interesting that in at least four – I was linked to these people through you – two or three separations.

Well, in LinkedIn you need to connect to a few “paul revere” types or some of the “mega connectors” to be “findable”

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: “canned invites” should just be automatically ignores

Friday, December 14, 2007

EMAIL ABOUT USING LINKEDIN’S IDKs

>Re: “Running out of invitations…”
>Posted by: “Mario P. Lopez”
>Thu Dec 6, 2007 7:41 pm (PST)
>Should we give the IDK “prize” to canned invitations, forget about it
>(and maybe avoid potential problems) and mind our own networking business?

While I am always up for a good “tar’n’feathering”, I’d suggest that “canned invites” should just be automatically ignores. I’d suggest that IDKing them might “freeze” a newbie who might not know any better. Since it will take a lot of work to determine exactly what is on the other end of the invite, and even more work if it is a newbie, I vote to just archive it.

I do, however, support identifying the spammers who should know better (i.e., the Blue Chip) and collectively determining to punish them for their annoying behavior.

When everyone was citing the Blue Chip spam, I thought that would be a good use of IDK.

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: Found some one who dropped me. And, I’ve asked why!

Friday, December 14, 2007

Found some one who dropped me. And, I’ve asked why!

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: “a social networking tool” … maybe? maybe not!

Sunday, December 9, 2007

FROM AN EMAIL EXCHANGE ABOUT “LIVELINESS”

*** begin quote ***

From: GB
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 8:50 AM
To: John Reinke
Subject: Re: Has anyone tested the “liveliness” of their LinkedIn “network”?

Okay, I read and re-read this.

I am not sure what you are exactly trying to say.

I recognize LinkedIn as a social networking tool. Outside of that, the voluntary and or involuntary act of CHAT or IM exist only where there are willing participants.

I would chat if there was something to chat about.

Perhaps, if you develop a forum that you wish to chat about or subjects that you would like feedback, you might draw the sustainable interest in the participants.

Outside of that, not everyone had a 6 sigma mentality and or even the slightest idea what that entails.

I, myself, am confused at times about the ‘how’s’, the ‘who’s’ and the ‘what’s’.

But, after all, it is only social networking. Not like it is dating or any other real and tangible way to communicate…right?

How you doin’
GB

*** end quote ***

>Okay, I read and re-read this.

Sorry, I wasn’t clearer.

>I am not sure what you are exactly trying to say.

LinkedIn is a “strange duck”. It’s not “networking”. It’s probably more than a “yellow pages for recruiters”. Folks are fooled into an “activity trap”
and think they are “doing networking”.

>i recognize LinkedIn as a social networking tool.

Tool? Hmmm, not sure of that.

>you might draw the sustainable interest in the participants.

I’m not trying to “draw the sustain able interest”. I’m trying to figure out what is the proper place for LinkedIn within my own thinking.

>not everyone had a 6 sigma mentality

OK, if you’re not into 6sig. Then, let me phrase the same question in “plain English”. If LinkedIn is a tool, then what value has it provided me that justifies the attention, work, money, or time that I put into it?

>But, after all, it is only social networking.

SO, it should be considered like MySpace, Facebook, or Friendster? I bet that’s a minority opinion.

> Not like it is dating or any other real and tangible way to communicate…right?

Maybe?

>How you doin’

Get ready for the next layoff, jobsearch, and my next to last job. :-) Fatalistic. But, best not to be surprised.

Thanks for the thoughts

# – # – #

Addendum:

Regardless of how solid one thinks one is in the job they are doing somewhere, it’s wise to be “aware”. I’ve pontificated often on the need of “salarymen”, as the Japanese wisely call those of us who are working for a paycheck, that you are only sure of the last paycheck that cleared the bank! It’s nice to believe in mutual loyalty between employer and employee, but, like most myths, hitting that “iceberg of reality” can put a big hole in YOUR boat. Bear in mind, it may not even be the employer’s “fault”. But even if it is, you must be prepared for when “the show closes”.

You always have to see the NEXT layoff in your future. It maybe next week, next month, next quarter, next year, next decade … … but be assured there WILL BE one! Sooner or later. Like a snowstorm, flood, or tornado, there’s going to be one. Salarymen must be prepared for it!

Give 100% to your employer for that is what you bargained for. Then, give 100% to finding your next gig. Never ever get caught by surprise.

In my patented copyrighted super-secret Coke-like formula for “how many months will I be burning not earning”, I have a factor for your to rate your employer. Factor is ONE for gooferment workers. (Although that may change if your work for the IRS and Ron Paul gets elected. But you get the idea.) Factor is FIVE if you work on WALLSTREET. How likely are you to get NUKED? The point is there is always some probability that you’ll get tossed out on your year. Just yesterday, I heard a senior exec at my employer tell a room full of folk “no job is safe”. So, I’d be a fool not to heeded my own advice.

:-)

And I may be a the big fat old turkey hisself and a FOWG to boot, but Mama Reinke didn’t raise no fool. (Where do you think my obsession with working comes from? Her Scarlet O’Hara-like dream of never being hungry gain!)

So, it’s get busy NETWORKING to prevent NOTWORKING!

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: like the aboriginal contemplating the Coke bottle that fell from a plane

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

FROM AN EMAIL EXCHANGE ABOUT “LIVELINESS”

Thanks for your insight. I’m not so sure what LinkedIn is, or isn’t.

In it’s public professions, it tries to be a “silver bullet”. Being wise old far … individuals we KNOW that the Lone Ranger took Silver and the bullets with him. I went into LinkedIn many moons ago with really no expectations. I didn’t discontinue any of my other activities, projects, processes, or methods — just squoze in LinkedIn.

Over the years, in my blog, I have wrestled with it. It more of a Yellow Pages than the Phone Book — or books. It doesn’t update my address book like Plaxo used to do very well. It doesn’t have lots of kids on it like MySpace or Facebook. It’s not Lucht style face 2 face networking. It’s not “job search” a la Monster, or “What Color Is Your Parachute”.

So, while it may be a “tool”, like the aboriginal contemplating the Coke bottle that fell from a plane, I’m left wondering what it is. :-)

Part, of figuring what it is or is not, is assessing it usability as a “networking tool”. (Some call it “not working”! Which I thought was clever. Of the measurements, that I have heard one claimed a 90% response rate and two said it was too much trouble to measure.)

Lord Kelvin said something like “If you can’t measure it, you don’t understand it”.

I also admit that on the rare occasions when I sing I am “off key” so why should this be different?

# # # # #


LINKEDIN: Results of my one month test on “liveliness” — 37%! I’m disappointed

Saturday, December 1, 2007

On November 1st, I hit upon the idea of “Liveliness” testing of my LinkedIn “network”.

(We can chat why my “LinkedIn network” is NOT my “network”. And, if what one does with LinkedIn is “networking”. It’s not Lucht’s version of face to face networking. But, it is doing “something”. Just don’t know if it should be called “networking” except in the loosest sense of the word.)

This test was aimed at all contacts older than one month. And, folk who LinkedIn with me — based on old invites — one was a year old — during the test are excluded from the results.

My LinkedIn network is a disappointing 37%!

My original focus was on “breakage”. That was 6%! I had, from LinkedIn, a bad email address, then that clearly that was not going to work very well!

While I was doing it, I became concerned that perhaps I was too heavy on:

* >1% SuperConnectors (little value in the traditional networking sense) ;

* 11% my Current Employer (little value if you get nuked); and

* 2% Hunters (little value in accessing the hidden job market).

During the test, I had the concept of “reaching around” the breaks. That’s how I describe sending an InMail directly to a contact of the “broken contact”. I was able to “repair” seven breaks.

Also, during the test, I was able to give some help: identifying in one case a inadvertent DUPLICATE; in several cases “unpersonalized” urls; a slew of typos; and some “broken” profiles (i.e., profiles with an obsolete email). So, it wasn’t just me bothering people; patheticly begging for a response.

Since my first formal try only got one third to respond, I’ll have to figure out a better approach. Clearly, if this is to be useful, it’s going to need MORE care and feeding.

Sigh. Always more to do!

I feel sorry for anyone, blithely sailing along, thinking that they are “networking” with LinkedIn, and then need that “network” for something, and get these type of results.

Note, that I am NOT an open networker, but have only added contacts that had a perceived value. Maybe, this is a very telling about the value of LinkedIn. AND, social networking in general.

Maybe Lucht is more right than I used to think?

Anyone else studying this?

# # # # #


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,045 other followers

%d bloggers like this: