Linkedin, You Tell Me…
April 7, 2008 at 3:28 pm 13 comments
Sigh, Linkedin Taxonomy...
The past few days I have been on a Linkedin spree. Having been remiss in updating my contacts, I finally went on the site and started adding away. Unlike Facebook, it’s imperative that you indicate how you know the person. While I get the logic of that, it’s just not working for me.
To illustrate this, I will use the example of my relationship with the fantastic Rob Cottingham of Social Signal (who received the request below and suggested I write a post on the subject). Rob writes for One Degree, and so do I. For months I saw and laughed at/with his cartoons about social media and read the Social Signal blog. In January of this year, I attended an event at HTCE at which he spoke and I introduced myself. The next month I saw him at Northern Voice where we chatted again. This month, I moderated a panel he was on.
So… er, “Other”, I guess …
‘Kay. I go through this process without about 50% of the people I know – we see each other frequently at events, have a good relationship online and off (though we don’t call each other to “hang” – and so the term “Friend” seems a bit presumptuous of me outside of Facebook). And so, out of desperation, I am forced to go with “Organization” and list the first event I met them at. Or the more vague, “Other”…
Anyone else experiencing this?
Entry filed under: Linkedin, social media. Tags: Linkedin, Monica Hamburg, Rob Cottingham, taxonomy.
13 Comments Add your own
Leave a reply to Rob Cottingham Cancel reply
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Me Like The Interweb 
1.
Jenn | April 7, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Yes, I’ve been in this position lots of times…they should add a ‘Business Acquaintance’ option.
2.
monicahamburg | April 7, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Thanks, Jenn. Good to know I’m not alone.
3.
Rob Cottingham | April 7, 2008 at 9:39 pm
So in an ideal world, here’s the menu:
– Personal friend
– Family member
– Colleague
– Business friend
– Partner (you’ve done business together)
– Members of an organization
– Blogging buddy
– Creepy high school acquaintance
– Can’t remember, too embarrassed to admit it
– Got drunk together at conference, messed around, not sure how far it went
– Got drunk together at conference, messed around, absolutely horrifically certain how far it went
– Someone who was willing to Digg my blog post
– Frequent teammate in flame wars
– Let’s face it, I don’t know them… but they’d be one hell of a trophy friend
4.
monicahamburg | April 8, 2008 at 7:02 am
I like! That covers most 🙂
“The can’t remember, too embarrassed to admit it” might be a way the person could peg them on the other end. I just got one the other day – have no idea if I know the person too embarrassed to ask (I am terrible with names).
I’d also add the following category: “I think this person is strange, but my friends are OK with him/her, so maybe it’s me… I guess I’ll accept.
5.
Kate Trgovac | April 11, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I would also add under “Partner”:
– Partner (we’ve done BIZNASS together)
Seriously though, I went through this exact same dilemma the other day – on both the giving and receiving ends. I got a request from someone who said they are a “colleague” .. which isn’t really accurate. Plus I had to do the ol’ “Other” to someone else.
Ugh.
Great post!
6.
Des Walsh | April 11, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Well caught! That is a terrible piece of design. Rob’s list is great although it does bring back some less than comfortable memories – and some quite hilarious in retrospect.
But back to the point: if you have a valid email for the person, the trick is to choose Other – which then allows you to enter their email and send the invitation, with or without a personal note (as one who gets and generally ignores lots of boilerplate invites to connect on LI, I strongly recommend a personal note).
7.
monicahamburg | April 11, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Thank you, Kate & Des. Good to hear you are both experiencing this! (Misery loves company). Kate, like your suggestion 😉 and Des, I’m with you – I tend to send the email. You’re right, adding a personal note is a great idea – and one that I haven’t implemented enough. I have been avoiding that a bit, ’cause I figure if they don’t know who I am we shouldn’t be Linkedin contacts. But then again, as I mentioned before, I’m bad with names – perhaps I should assume others can be…
8. My Vision Of Social Networking: Burning Problems « Follow the passion | June 29, 2008 at 10:05 am
[…] networking life, more on this later). In descending order by intimacy level (also look at this taxonomy in […]
9. New Friend Categories for LinkedIn.com | November 29, 2009 at 11:46 am
[…] While I understand why LinkedIn.com forces you to put your contacts into categories, it’s still difficult sometimes. I’m not the only one who thinks that. […]
10. Cartoon: That’s What Friends Are For | google android os blog | November 29, 2009 at 5:10 pm
[…] (”I vomited on their shoes at the office party” isn’t on the list, for example.) We had a back-and-forth on her blog, and I came up with a list of some potentially useful additions to LinkedIn’s […]
11. Cartoon: That’s What Friends Are For | Rizzn and Sean's Funny Papers | November 29, 2009 at 11:32 pm
[…] (”I vomited on their shoes at the office party” isn’t on the list, for example.) We had a back-and-forth on her blog, and I came up with a list of some potentially useful additions to LinkedIn’s […]
12. That’s what friends are for | November 30, 2009 at 11:31 am
[…] (”I vomited on their shoes at the office party” isn’t on the list, for example.) We had a back-and-forth on her blog, and I came up with a list of some potentially useful additions to LinkedIn’s categories. […]
13. That’s what friends are for | Noise to Signal | December 28, 2009 at 8:40 am
[…] (“I vomited on their shoes at the office party” isn’t on the list, for example.) We had a back-and-forth on her blog, and I came up with a list of some potentially useful additions to LinkedIn’s categories. […]