Thank you for your post, Chris!

- Steven Burda | burda.mba(at)gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/burda
Dec 2008 Article:
http://www.cio.com/article/print/470122

Personally I can understand both sides of this argument, Linkedin's and that of my fellow LION's. What I do not understand is why Linkedin does not just publish a specific amount of connections a person can have, and then what the charge would be for those that wish more connections. I also would think that since there are not really that many people even close to Steven Burda's amount of connections, that Linkedin does not just look to him as a free publicity agent. Linkedin's silence on this matter is deafening!

J. Michael Warner
Genesee Crest Ltd.

Thanks for this excellent article.

I lead a number of user groups on LinkedIn. We took steps in most of these these groups to treat LIONs as spammer when they post to a group for the sole purpose of requesting connections.

With all due respects, LIONs have evolved to be, generally speaking, a new type of social networking spammer. LIONs are breaking LinkedIn acceptable use policy (AUP) to only connect to people they know. Instead, LIONs have turned an important social networking process into a type of game.

From experience, I would applaud LinkedIn if they decided to ban LIONs from LinkedIn for breaking LinkedIn policy. Hence, LIONs should be happy that they have not been banned by LinkedIn for gaming the system and spamming the user groups!

Cheers.

Tim B.
www.thecepblog.com
www.unix.com
www.linkedin.com/in/timbass

LinkedIn=Job finder/resume enhancer

well as LinkedIN has paid accounts packages why don't they remove restrictions on one of the packages or make like 1000 extra connections for a certain ammount of money?

Eventhough I don't see a point to have 30,000 on LinkedIN unless you are willing to have a recruitment agency on it "hehehe"

For me LinkedIN is to connect with ppl i know, colleagues, recruit talents for the agency and thats it.

cheers!
Jean
Linked In Profile @
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeanghalo?goback=%2Econ-*3conbro*40*4*051*4false*4*02*40

I see LinkedIn as a way to improve your professional reputation, not just for networking. Your connections vouch for your professional reputation, so anyone with a large amount of connections with no real substance will find that they have actually very little in the way of relationships to help vouch for their professional reputation. They may have some Joe who's never met them giving them a pat on the back for using their massive network to help them do some little task, but ultimately hiring managers won't give a flip about that.

LinkedIn reserves the right to limit the number of connections as they see fit, because it costs them money to provide and maintain this data. They offer many features for free which would be considered invaluable to many professionals, but some members still want something for nothing.

I would also add...LinkedIn is not Facebook or Myspace. It's not about how "popular" you are.

LinkedIn needs to nip this problem quickly lest it digress into an unsecure, open free-marketplace like myspace or facebook. I recently discovered (regrettably) that unlike LinkedIn, Facebook does NOT send confirmation emails for password or email account changes. This makes Facebook users easy prey to profile hijacking and other internet abuses.

LinkedIn needs to stay "above ground" on this one -- addressing the LION issue should only be step one. If users don't like it they can join the teenagers on Facebook and MySpace.

As someone who has worked very hard to build a high quality network, I am glad to see LinkedIn doing this. Contacts who join my network know that they are connecting into a network that has some true value.

I can see that both sides have very valid arguments. On the one side, some LIONs are spamming, but other ones do offer a very valuable service and resource.
LinkedIn and LIONs can certainly come to an understanding that can benefit both parties, while minimizing spam and impact to revenues.
I am not aware of any initiative to get both groups to talk, but they both certainly should, and perhaps open the discussion to other users as well.

I guess I don't get it...
Seven of my meager 110 connections show 500+ connections. Whether they are official LIONs or not I didn't check and it really doesn't matter to me. I don't see any issues.

All of my initial connections were people I know. But what good is a networking site if you don't expand and make NEW connections with people you don't know?

I meet new people mostly through LinkedIn's Q&A forum (Steve Burda included). I like their questions or answers and want to connect so I do. These new connections are then added to my updates and I can see what new questions they've asked or answered. I like the opportunity of having this type of exposure to ideas, cultures and opinions. If someone is just a deadbeat, collecting connections like trophies, and not active in my areas of interest, group or posting interesting Q&A, then they drop off my radar.

Whether that connection is a LION or not doesn't mean they are not valued to me as a part of my professional network.