Should LinkedIn Groups Be Part of Your Social Strategy?

Comments: 9

  • Stacey says:

    I’d like to add that when you are looking for groups, make sure the ones you join have active discussions taking place. Some groups simply act as ad mills. In other words, there’s no real social networking going on, just folks promoting their products and services. I am in the process of un-joining such groups, because I just don’t see the purpose they serve. By all means, please enlighten me if you guys understand the point of their existence.

    • That’s one of my biggest problems with the LinkedIn Groups – trying to create or even have a meaningful conversation. If the group isn’t a glorified ad’s page it’s just a page full of people attempting to prove you wrong at every possible moment…even if you’re not wrong!

  • Chris Green says:

    Of the 200+ million users claimed by LinkedIn, I estimate that perhaps a quarter are “active”. I know one person who lists as “current” a job that she left over 6 years ago. LI Groups are useful if you choose the right ones: join, watch the discussions for a week or two, then leave if the discussions don’t meet your needs – or are just jobs or adverts. A dozen quality discussion groups are far better than 50 nondescript ones.

  • I’ve just written an article looking specifically at LinkedIn groups and it’s generated a lot of discussion. Whilst LinkedIn groups in theory are well worth investing your time in, this is not always the case.

    LinkedIn has a little known policy in place, SWAM – Site Wide Automatic Moderation meaning that if anything you do is flagged by a bot as suspected spam, without warning you will automatically be blocked from participating in all LinkedIn Groups.

    On it’s own such a policy would not be bad and would seem sensible but in practice it means a lot of professionals, contributing high quality, non spammy content are being wrongly flagged whilst blatant and some very obvious spammers are slipping through the net. Whatever algorithm LinkedIn are using, it’s getting it wrong an awful lot of the time and it’s stopping a lot of people from participating in groups.

    LinkedIn Groups are good (but not as good as Google Plus Communities in my experience), but for anyone new to them, do make sure you are aware of this blanket banning policy that they have in place.

  • Stacey says:

    @Shell – Thanks. I had no idea about SWAM. That’s good to know. I’ve posted a link to a blog post a few times and did so in more than one group. I wonder if that would qualify as SWAM. Most of the time, I’m simply conversing, but on occasion, I have posted. Thanks again.

  • Brian Rich says:

    Great post, I keep my Linkedin profile updated but I do not use it as a social tool for like others it is hard to find legitimate and useful groups.

  • Kelsey says:

    I like LinkedIn groups, but it’s hard to find good ones that aren’t flooded with self-promotion.

  • It wasn’t so long ago that Jeff Weiner proudly said LinkedIn was all about “members first”. SWAM has shown how quickly a company can go off track. In early November Jeff Weiner explained to the New York Times:

    “So our culture has five dimensions: transformation, integrity, collaboration, humor, and results. And there are six values: members first; relationships matter; be open, honest and constructive; demand excellence; take intelligent risks; and act like an owner. And by far the most important one is members first. We as a company are only as valuable as the value we create for our members.”

    Less than two months later his minions implemented SWAM. As I write in my new blog post, SWAM is anything but members first.

    Read more in my blog at: http://www.projectweavers.com/linkedin-member-first-no-more/

    Thanks,
    Matthew

Add a New Comment

Thank you for adding to the conversation!

Our comments are moderated. Your comment may not appear immediately.