First off, this post is almost three years old and the Yahoo Group where Steve posted his message is no longer around, so I don’t have any way to track it down. So in response to your question…I have no idea.

That said, you say, “I choose to give him coverage.” Did I do so in a positive light? Did I say people should do what Steve does? Read the whole post. I think I gave a very balanced view of this topic.

I agree that “Wah wah” is hardly an appropriate reply to someone asking to get off someone’s contact list, but accusing me of “giving coverage” to someone you perceive as a spammer when all I did was quote two sentences he posted on a discussion forum almost three years ago is going a bit overboard too.

I ask because I have been getting SPAM emails from every social website known to mankind with his name on them. He took my email address from monster.com and contacted me about an IT job several years ago. I did not respond. Regardless, he kept my email address and has signed me up an many many internet sites over the years. I wrote him a few times asking him to take me off his contact list. His reponse was, “Wah wah”. This guy needs to be sued. Yet you choose to give him coverage.

I got a new email from him today. He’s now signed me at up doggietube.com.

Here are my two cents: I believe that, as the center of my network, I am the “host” and serve my network as a host would. Therefore, as you suggest between the lines, ethically it’s best to treat people in your network in line with their comfort levels; how will *they* feel? Loose tie people probably won’t mind, while tight tie people are another story. It’s kind of obvious, but connections have their preferences, and the more considerate we can be, the better.

Best- Chris

LinkedIn is not, first and foremost, a communication tool — and certainly not a group communication tool. They have always positioned themselves first and foremost as a tool for leveraging existing relationships — to get business done or to make new ones.

The groups within LinkedIn exist for pretty much two main reasons: 1) to give free members visibility to their fellow members of a group even if they aren’t connected within three degrees, and 2) to allow you to identify fellow members of the group when searching.

Of course, once group members start using LinkedIn, reason #1 becomes somewhat irrelevant. If everyone connects to the leader(s) of the group, then everyone is within two degrees of each other. At that point, from a practical standpoint, then the impact is that your fellow group members show up between your first-degree contacts and your second degree. By being a fellow member of a group, you appear higher in the search results.

LinkedIn Groups simply isn’t a group communication or collaboration tool. They didn’t feel the need to do that, because there are SO many other solutions already out there for that — why spend resources developing functionality that is already readily (and freely) available?

I would appreciate anyone explaining to me the wisdom of having these groups with crippled communications as they are today ????

thanks

I think there is a distinction between networking for business and just networking which may end up being business.

I started sending an e-mail once a month to my (growing) circle of people I want to stay communicating with. I consider it a monthly “Holiday Letter” that just lets people know what is going on in my life. In a global economy and with people and their time spread so thin, it is a simple, consistent way to keep in contact with people.

Usually, four paragraphs: job, writing, ham radio, and adventures.

Not asking for anything, just an update with a photo of some place of my family.

I’ve considered adding my LinkedIn crowd to the e-mail, but haven’t done that yet. I think I will.

By the way, in my not very extensive LinkedIn crowd, I only consistently hear from three people, usually in a note or call every few months. So, if you haven’t exchanged anything from someone on your LinkedIn list for a year, how willing would you be to help the other person?

(And Jason Alba’s newsletter rocks!)