As for setting up lists, LinkedIn does have the tagging feature which allows you to group your connections for your internal view, and “notes” for each one too – both of which I have found useful on the occasions when I have added someone because I liked their comments in a group we both belonged and we started a connection that way, as well as in distinguishing other types of connections.

A similar post with more related comments can be found on this post. My comment in the thread includes the names of some of my very best friends met on LinkedIn. If I hadn’t built a large network, and “virtually” shook the hand of people I don’t know, my life would be missing the heart of these incredible people!

I’m not sorry that I’m not willing to give that up.

I *used* to feel pretty much the same way you do. There are lots of early posts on here to that effect.

What I also knew all along is that there are lots of levels of “connections”, and that LinkedIn simply doesn’t handle degree of connection very well, period. For example, there’s the problem of asymmetrical relationships, i.e., the customer knows the service provider’s work, but that doesn’t mean the service provider knows much of anything about the customer. They paid their bill on time. Or what about the person who read your book and it changed their business/life? Or the regular reader of your blog?

Point is, there’s a spectrum, and LinkedIn isn’t built to handle that — you’re either connected or you’re not.

So the whole trusted referral thing falls apart if you’re using the fact that you’re connected on LinkedIn to determine whether or not to make the referral.

The new Twitter lists, Facebook lists and Google+ circles features have called my attention to the fact that you really need to be more granular than just “in vs. out” in order to manage your attention and your trust effectively.

It also depends, I’ve always said, on the nature of your business and what you’re trying to accomplish. If you’re selling enterprise software into the Fortune 500, having 30K connections is pretty pointless. If, on the other hand, you’re positioning yourself as a subject matter expert to a very, very broad audience, or if you represent a B2C company, then it makes a lot more sense.

Having a network of 30K people doesn’t mean that you have 30K people who are reliable and willing to take action. But you can still have the exact same 500-1,000 trusted, actionable relationships, and the rest “on the periphery” — within your sphere of influence — *potential* actionable relationships.

Many years ago, had LinkedIn kept a tighter rein on things, it might be different now. But since the cow’s out of the bag and the cats are out of the barn, the game has changed significantly.

I’m not suggesting it’s the best approach for you, or everyone — I’m just saying don’t knock it ’til you’ve tried it. Talk to Lori and find out just how actionable her network is.

These 30,000-person networks can’t possibly be that. In fact, I just went through my LinkedIn account and disconnected from anyone whose name I did not recognize. Deleted about 50 people that way. Yeah, my list is smaller, but more genuine connections are better, in my opinion, and I don’t believe anybody can possibly have 30,000 REAL connections. And yes, I’ve heard all about the power of weak ties. Fie.

In general, I distrust LinkedIn “rockstars.” Lots of notches in their belts, but not a reliable, actionable network.

Linkedin is a great way to be noticed. I think if a user knows how to used this tool he or she will never think of leaving the site.