Reinke Faces Life

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.

# # # # #

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

# # # # #

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!

# # # # #

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?

# # # # #

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?

# # # # #

FROM AN EMAIL EXCHANGE ABOUT LINKEDIN AND A DEATH

> Re: Interesting what does LinkedIn do … …
>Posted by: “WashingtonDCLobbyist”
>Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:57 am (PST)
>LI has clearly thought this through – and they have a well-used
>policy in place. Sadly, with the numbers were talking about on LI,

Well they clearly have something in place. It just doesn’t meet my needs. Not that it has too. Not that they have ever been overly concerned with my suggestions.

I’d call it the “your call is very important to us (Yeah, right!)” thinking. Like the resume writer who foolishly thinks that the objective section on a resume refers to HIS objective and not that of the reader. Or, the “post office – dmv – take a number move along” service attitude.

Instead of LinkedIn using it as an opportunity to make LinkedIn less like a recruiter’s phone book and more like a true community, they have “a well-used policy in place”.

It’s far too easy to just say that “LI has clearly thought this through”, when fmpov it’s not “thought through” the eyes of this end user.

That’s why I say that LinkedIn is at risk to competition. (If I was the rumored buyer of LinkedIn, I’d take off a few points or a few grazillion bucks because it’s very vulnerable.) And, it’s not MySpace / Facebook / Plaxo / Ryze or such. It’s the new disruptive upstart who figures out that what the Universe needs is a true business social network community site. And, then delivers it flawlessly. :-)

# # # # #

My taxonomy of things you might see on LinkedIn

===beginning of list===

ABILLGATES – high value contact, who may or may not have authorized it, guarded by a troll, who doesn’t permit access to the contact except by preapproval.

ALTEREGO – a second profile of an individual to feature a different persona; seen by a doctor musician or was that a musician doctor.

BEAUTY – recruiter creates an identity, with all the characteristic of someone they wished they represented. When people connect, they then try to form up a solid opportunity with the person so they can represent to the real person.

CLONES – recruiting troll takes a profile that is liked and “replicates” it into his geographic hunting zone for the purpose of finding “buyers” and like minded “sellers”.

DUPLICATE – a second profile to segregate their “open” and “regular” networking. Or, created in order to “start over” with LinkedIn from a clear slate. Or, a just blunder.

EMPTYSUIT – just abandoned

GHOSTS – really deceased, like my high school chum

PRANKS – people set up profiles of people for hahas responding or not as the spirit moves them.

PSUEDOS – I’ve seen no degree candidates create a virtual “clone” of themselves and add a degree. Then, control access to the “psuedo” and, when approached, they will try to sell into the opportunity.

RECRUITER – executive search, retained, contingency

SCARECROW – recruiting troll creates a mythical person as “bait” with the characteristics they see in “their” candidate. They do this to encourage connections from inside or outside recruiters where they can then “switch” in their candidate.

STRAWMAN – owned by a recruiting troll, advertising a real someone, and who will “toll booth” you to make contact)

ZOMBIE – an identity of potentially a real person setup by someone else for other purposes like expanding their contact list, looking more popular, or writing their own recommendations)

===end of list===

One characteristic to look for is a single, or sparse, contact list.

Another is there are several “stubs” found “close by” a single recruiter:

I only tumbled to this “barbara streisand” when I tried to reach an old College friend and hit a toll boother.

Another time I found my “credentials” on LinkedIn copied to someone in Kansas City. Exactly; my babblings are pretty distinctive, so they do show on searches. So my curiosity was piqued, I pinged, and never heard anything again. I deemed that was a “clone”, designed to flush out a buyer in that area?

This is posted not to give you ideas, but to give you an insight as to what you might find.

Remember, on the net, no one knows your a dog!

I’m just an injineer; not a hunter, nor a seeker, and I haven’t stayed in a Holiday Inn Express lately.

# – # – #

20071215 Found a new type of troll — POLITICIAN — like a “doll”?

There’s a “Hillary Clinton” and a “Ron Paul”!

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.

# # # # #

Does anyone else not like how the number of your LinkedIn contacts can change silently?

I come form a “production mentality”. If my database has a 1,000 records, then tomorrow it should have 999. This “silent disconnect” feature makes me wonder if LinkedIn didn’t just drop one by accident.

Argh!

What’s the big deal of sending me a message that “Joe Blow dropped you like a dead fish”? They send messages for everything else!

# # # # #

SHARED WITH ONE OF MY LINKEDIN CONTACTS

May I suggest that you might want to add more contacts to your LinkedIn profile?

LinkedIn is the “find” and “be found” site. But your profile has to be “real”. There are many suspicious profiles on LinkedIn. My taxonomy is: ghosts (abandoned), strawman (owned by a recruiter advertising a real someone and who will “toll booth” you to make contact), scarecrow (owned by a recruiter who will try to sell you a substitute), a zombie (an identity of potentially a real person setup by someone else for other purposes like expanding a contact list to look more popular), and an alter ego (a second profile to feature a different persona). One characteristic they all share is a single, or sparse, contact list. Your contact list is like that. If you’re not getting the results you want, that might be the reason.

# # # # #

“Network Drafting” as defined as noticing that someone you trust in your network connects to another person, and you attempt to connect as well. You’re drafting in the sense that you follow their lead to improve your situation – drafting the race car or bicyclist in front of you.

— Steve Glaiser, Product Quality Executive Management

# # # # #

FROM AN EMAIL TO ONE OF MY LINKEDIN FIRST LEVEL CONTACTS

*** begin quote ***

Hi XXXXX: Well, it’s a quiet Sunday morning and I’m working on my current LinkedIn project “how live is my network”. I’ve been reviewing all my contacts to see if there are people I can help. (Yeah, I know “get a life”!) While I’m not “out” now, I could be. So prep is always in order. Pay it forward. I was looking at your LinkedIn profile and I was struck by the “recommendations” of YYYYYYYYYY. Yours is the first negative recommendation of anyone I think I have ever seen. (It kinda puts an interesting question about what does the word “recommendation” mean?) Is it a joke? If not, were you really that mad at him? Now I have no other agenda other than curiosity. As I said, never saw such before and just had to know more. If you have a moment and care to elaborate, I’d love to hear more. Of course, if there is anything I can do to help, please advise. Thanks, your “LinkedIn version of the Vulcan mind meld” mate fjohn

P.S.: I’m adjusting my tin foil hat so you’ll get better reception.

*** end quote ***

Seems like something that is very dangerous to do.

# # # # #

May I suggest that you have your own domain?

The common wisdom, or is that common whizdumb, is to own your own name as a domain name. I own “reinke.cc”. (I like saying “sea sea me at reinke.cc”!) I gives one quite a bit of control. And, it’s very cheap. I know three solutions at 15$/year using wordpressdotcom with gmail, 25$/year email only with 1and1, and 60$/year for domain + email + webspace also at 1and1. My point is not that you should use 1and1. I could care less. It’s that getting on to your own email is cheap and easy.

# # # # #

May I suggest that you not use your employer’s email on LinkedIn?

LinkedIn is a great way to find people and be found. Unfortunately, in today’s economic climate, changing jobs is a fact of life. When I was on Wall Street, one would be walked out of the building and one’s email unceremoniously forwarded to one’s boss or “Human Resources”. That taught me NEVER to depend or use the boss’ email. So to, I’ve seen a lot of people — one of my very best contacts — lose access to their LinkedIn account. She’s forgotten her password and her corporate email is gone. Hence always I advise people to use a personal email on LinkedIn. I have some pretty specific opinions about what email to use, but suffice to say it’s NEVER the corporate email.

# – # – #

Update: And, I saw that happen yesterday! :-(

# # # # #

FROM AN EMAIL ABOUT LINKEDIN

*** begin quote ***

>Second, what is the 5 strikes and you’re locked rule that you refer to below?

LinkedIn has a policy, about a year old, that if five people that you invite say “Don’t know”, you’re account is locked out. Depending upon how well you kowtow to “customer (dis)service”, they will unlock you. A second offense, and you may not be unlocked.

>Third, I like your “I am not accepting your request ..”

Contrary to the impression my large count gives, I am NOT an open networker. (I run an alumni ezine and have been “in transition” five times and ran a networking group.) I try to only connect with kindred spirits.

>Speaking of LinkedIn, I had an interesting conversation with a recruiter last week on the topic of having recruiters as LinkedIn connections.

I’d think that was “interesting” because recruiters have a completely different set of objectives than real people.

> I told her my take on how I see it being a one-way street (at least from a career networking point of view)

I’m not so sure I agree with you. LinkedIn for seekers allows one to find and be found.

>and she basically agreed as she said “I would never put my clients in my linkedin connections”.

Sure, because she can’t compete with all the recruiters out their chasing a diminishing world of hiring managers and job seekers. If I can id someone who needs my brand of poison then why should they hire a recruiter to find me. Or visa versa.

There’s a lot of sleeze tactics on LinkedIn.

*** end quote ***

What is a personalized LinkedIn url?

Personalizing your LinkedIn url allow you to customize the web address of your LinkedIn public profile. You can include this personalized LinkedIn url in the signature of emails you send, post it on other web sites, or whatever. (Put it on your resume?) You “personalize” it by getting to the “Edit My Public Profile” page. Then choose what will appear after the last slash in www.linkedin.com/in/ “at least five letters”! “first come, first served”! “one to a user”!

# # # # #

At the end of the first week: (for all contacts older than one month)

%Dead 0.0720
%Unresponding 0.6490
%MyEmployer 0.0719
%HeadHunters 0.0182

# – # – #

My original focus was on “breakage”. But at a little more than 5%, that’s not terrible. I am attempting to “reach around” the break. That’s how I describe sending an InMail directly to a contact of the “broken contact”.

Since my first email only induced about 30% to respond, I’ll have to figure out a better approach.

Sigh. Always more to do!

# # # # #

In building your LinkedIn circle of connections, it appears wise to have some organized system of tracking them from the beginning. Lest, awhile down the road, you WILL be asked “How do I know you?”. Sometimes that’s a tough question. Unless you have anticipated it.

# # # # #

FROM A LINKEDIN QUESTION, MY ANSWER:

*** begin quote ***

I recently started a new job. How can I send an update message in to all of my LinkedIn connections letting them know?

*** end quote ***

I’d suggest going the extra mile and send each person a personalized email.

It can be identical in content but you’ll find that individual messages get through spam filter easier.

Also, if by chance a email address is out of date — not likely that would ever happen with LinkedIn-ites — my current number of bum address is 7% — you’ll have some personalized text to resolve it. Sometimes bounces don’t really give you enough to go on.

You can even repay the Universe for your good fortune by asking if they need you help.

If you use Microsoft Word, Exce, and Outlook, it’s pretty easy to do a merge. I download LinkedIn contacts into an XLS sheet. Spruce up the name field. Create a message in Word. Then run a merge. It’ll stuff them in your Outlook email outbox and they ship out on the next send receive.

All pretty easy to do.

# # # # #

You can subdivided you contacts into “panels” by the first letter of their last name. (It’s useful for may things. Days Outstanding measurement. Balancing what LinkedIn thinks you have versus what you have in Outlook.)

I have a little trick for finding out how many of a certain letter LinkedIn has. If you go to the “contacts” screen in LinkedIn and tap on the letter in the index, then up at the top is “showing xxx of yyyy connections”. And there is your check total. It’s better than trying to count, or print to count.

fwiw

# # # # #

In my LinkedIn Outlook folder, I have 1109 contacts. In LinkedIn, I have 1100. Why the discrepancy?

And, it’s not easy to figure it out.

One can count until you’re bleary eyed. But it’s like counting sheep, it’ll put you to sleep.

And, is it an “activity trap” type of activity? Or, does it lead to something useful?

Don’t know.

# # # # #

FROM AN EMAIL TO A LINKEDIN CONTACT WHO HAD BEEN “POUNDED”:

*** begin quote ***

FYI Your profile has been sent to the “dog pound” by LinkedIn. I think you need to take some action on that, but I don’t know what to tell you. It’s my understanding that you will not, repeat NOT, be found in any LinkedIn searches if you’ve been “pounded”. So right away, I think you have a problem. It’s my again my understanding that LinkedIn has done this to anyone who has their email, or other strange characters in their name field. The hard part is only YOUR first level connections can see this “pounding”, and tell you about it. Others that I have told, have “fixed” the problem and about a week later were “un-pounded”. Please advise if, after you “fix” it, you want me to check for you again.

Fjohn

*** end quote ***

AND HERE”S WHERE I FIRST HEARD ABOUT IT:

*** begin quote ***

Is Your Profile Ending Up In The Linkedin Dog Pound?
Posted by: “Vincent Wright”
Tue Nov 7, 2006 10:01 pm (PST)

Because of the way the symbol for it is pronounced, I think of the “#”
Section of Linkedin’s Remove Connections as “The Dog Pound” . (Some may
think this a good name for certain types of profiles. :-))

In case you’re not familiar with the “#” Section on Linkedin, it’s located
at the end of the alphabetized list of your contacts at:
http://www.linkedin.com/connections?displayBreakConnections

You and I cannot place any contacts in this area. Profiles are assigned
there by Linkedin’s contact algorithm based on certain types of elements
being present in the name field – I believe.

Food For Thought: Some people may use this as a way to clean up “weak”
connections en masse. If this happens, your profile may unintentionally be
removed even by a connection who may know you pretty well as a “strong”
connection.

—
Thanks!
Vincent Wright
Chief Encouragement Officer
www.VincentWright.com

*** end quote ***

# # # # #

A LinkedIn Question
by Rob Richard
Entrepreneur & IT Consultant

*** begin quote ***

Has LinkedIn missed the boat?

Is it me or does LinkedIn seem stagnant; complacent? I’ve not seen any new features in eons, and it really is getting rather old.

With the recent and sizeable cash infusion to facebook from Microsoft ($250 million worth!), what is LinkedIn’s response? There are so many things that could enhance the service. Open it up to developers just as facebook has. I think facebook is more young-people / early adopter centric, but LinkedIn could at least learn a lesson from them and stake their claim in the business and professional networking sites by adding more stickiness.

On more than one occasion I’ve sent suggestions on how to improve the site and its offerings and never heard anything in return. Now as a web entrepreneur, if I have people giving me free suggestions on how to make it more useful, I’d listen. So the question I ask is: “Has LinkedIn missed the boat?”

*** end quote ***

A very tough question.

I personally am not sure of the benefits versus costs of LinkedIn. It may well be an “activity trap” where effort far exceeds results. I think that they have a tiger by the tail.

I haven’t seen anything better.

Facebook came the closest with it’s using college email addresses to define “networks” and with some widespread adoption. But they were aiming at a different value equation.

I think LinkedIn’s poor (in some case non-existent) customer service, it’s new five “idontknows” lockout, and the MONUMENTAL blunder about hassling the LinkedIn affinity groups like LinkedInNewYork and all of Vincent Wright’s efforts is indicative of their “cluelessness”.

Have they missed the boat? No!

Have they failed to capture the wave? Yes!

If Amazon, Ebay, the Ron Paul Presidential run, and other web20 successes taught us anything, it should be that within a very well defined meme let the users surprise you with their energy. And, then hang on tight.

I suggested eons ago, that LinkedIn give me three fields for each of my contacts. One for a private note, one for a note visible only to them, and one was a “last contact date”. The private note was for my use to trigger my memory or record an important fact.The mutually visible note would be for me to record how I knew the person or what I owed them. The date was so I could produce a “days outstanding” metric and sort a “make contact list” by age. NEVER, never, never heard anything back on the idea. It showed me that they weren’t serious about servicing my needs. Only their own.

Later when they hassled the user groups, I knew they had NO CLUE about making LinkedIn a success from my point of view.

So, “No, they haven’t missed the boat” only because there is NO competition to jump to.

imho.

# # # # #

Arghh! This is annoying. I have ten discrepancies between what I show and what LinkedIn has. And, I didn’t even start reconciling what Outlook has.

# # # # #

(1) Not easy to do.

(2) I watch my LinkedIn-ites pretty carefully, I have an excel spreadsheet that use to track. However many adjustments are needed to reconcile.

(3) In my spreadsheet, I have a column that takes the first character of the last name with the formula =UPPER(LEFT(celladdr,1)). That establishes what I call a panel.

(4) A separate sheet in the workbook creates a 1 in the A column if the panel cell is an “A”. B column tests B. and so on until Z. Row and column summaries look for errors.

(5) I hate when on LinkedIn people silently leave. I don’t want to keep them if they don’t want to be linked, but I would like to know that they have left. This is one of my gripes with LinkedIn. How do you handle the “leavers”?

# # # # #

FROM AN LINKEDIN CONTACT’S EMAIL

>the connections you made from that MySQL blast that put the recipients in the cc field instead of the bcc field

Sure, while I haven’t chatted with him yet this year, I know he had two LinkedIn accounts at one time. Wonder if he ever had them merged?

That’s a interesting question.

I don’t know how many contacts I picked up that way. I do know that my “average days outstanding is 231. And my target for LinkedIn contacts is 180.

So I’m glad you asked.

I feel that I have identified about 5% of my contacts that are “dead”. It probably makes sense to prune the deadwood.

Maybe I should have a “census” of biblical proportions? Unlike Herord’s, contacts wouldn’t have to return to their birth city. Just reply to an email. Seems like a good idea.

How do you manage your LinkedIn connections?

Or, any connections?

# # # # #