LOL

"Idea.blob"?? I couldn't believe that was for real, and I had to find out so I went opened a new browser window and entered it. Sure enough it's a site. One of those "entrepreneur" type sites. Whatever.

As far as whether you're being anti-social, let's look at Allison's invitation again for where you've "connected". She gives four websites and then says "or through a friend/associate." So apparently Allison doesn't even quite know where you "connected" with her. Can you say "spam"??

My opinion: you're not anti-social, you just don't have "Sucker" stamped on your forehead.

It's peer-to-peer pressure, David. It's no less real online than in real life. It's like when you're a kid and the slightly dorky neighbor kid keeps wanting to pal around with you. You want to tell him to go away, but you kind of feel bad for him because he doesn't know he's that dorky. And so you just ignore him, until one day you can't take it anymore
and you tell him to take a hike. After which, you feel bad. Relieved, but still bad.

It's why on Facebook the little button that lets you reject a "friend" request from that same dork 20 years later says "ignore" on it instead of "reject" - it's to ease your guilt.

Don't feel bad. You're not being anti-social. You're just being discriminating in your selection of online hangers-on.

Eeewww. Instead of trying to bullshit the LinkedIn world about the number of contacts she has, Allison should develop an expertise in something and then go impress some real people with it. (Not that you aren't real, David....)

I've settled on a rule of thumb that seems to work for me re: invites.

1) I let anyone read my blog or comment there (as long as they aren't obnoxious, and even then I let them stay.

2) I let people who seem to be in my extended network follow me on Twitter. But I only follow people who "give good twit."

3) LinkedIn: If I don't know the person, they aren't getting in. But friendship doesn't enter into it: I have a number of people on my LinkedIn list with whom I have only formal -- or even chilly -- relations, but they are there because I can vouch for their professional inegrity and skill. That's what LinkedIn is for.

4) Facebook: I have to know and like you for you to make my list. And I have no problem whacking the ignore button.

5) IM: my closest circle.

Anyone with 4000 Facebook friends and 9000 LinkedIn contacts is a liar, by the way.

I actually like LinkedIn--a little--because, having connected with some actual colleagues and business acquaintances through it, I got back in touch with someone I'd lost touch with a couple years ago, because I found his name in someone else's LinkedIn network. So I can see where it has some usefulness.

That said, I'll qualify--I like it a LITTLE because of that one experience; but there are things I really don't like about LinkedIn. For example, it went through my Outlook address book and identified other people, people I do know, as being a part of LinkedIn, and asked if I'd like to connect them to my LinkedIn network. That sounded like a good idea, so I said yes. Apparently I had misread the question, because it then sent out a wave of emails--only to those people it had told me were already in LinkedIn, thank God, not to my entire address book--and it turned out that it was INVITING them to be my colleagues rather than letting me ask to link to them through something they had already joined. None of these people were LinkedIn members, and it generated a raft of emails back to me asking what this was all about. Not only that, but it actually sent a reminder some time later to those who didn't respond, telling them that their invitation was about to expire.

I felt like an idiot. In fact, the more I recall that embarrassing situation, the more I think that "like a little" may be too strong a statement. It's great that I found my old friend through it; but with a little effort, I probably could have found him anyway. The LinkedIn route just made it easier to reconnect. And I really didn't like the way it mass mailed people I like and respect. Again, perhaps I just didn't read carefully enough, but I sure thought it was telling me that they were already in this network.

Anyway, I never have felt like sheer numbers of people in my "network" was an important goal, whether in LinkedIn or MySpace or MyRagan. I'd far rather have my contacts list represent people I know or have something in common with than as a gauge to my popularity. I save business cards for those "just in case" scenarios where something comes up and I need a name to help me solve a problem. But I don't send them all Christmas cards, and I sure don't count them all as friends.

As to wondering whether you're being anti-social media, in my opinion you strengthen social media by being selective and intentional. It's that very lack of objectivity, that random casting about to be popular, that leads to people thinking that social media is nothing but a time-wasting toy. Treat it as a valid tool, whether for business or social purposes, and you make it stronger.

Good perspectives, all. Thanks.

I've wanted to write an article for sometime on the subject of "de-networking"--how to take the list of everyone you know personally and professionally and get rid of those many who simultaneously:

Aren't helping you and who you aren't helping.

Of course, by that rigorous standard, we might lose some family members.....

"...you strengthen social media by being selective and intentional. It's that very lack of objectivity, that random casting about to be popular, that leads to people thinking that social media is nothing but a time-wasting toy. Treat it as a valid tool, whether for business or social purposes, and you make it stronger."

Joan, you're my hero. "That random casting about to be popular." Bullseye! Shades of fifth grade!

>>Anyone with 4000 Facebook friends and 9000 LinkedIn contacts is a liar, by the way.<<

That depends, Allan, what your definition of a LinkedIn constact is...sort of like B. Clinton's question of what "is" is (VBG). I have 163 first level contacts (i.e. friends) like you, 52,000 2nd level contacts (friends of friends) and 2.8 million at my 3rd level (i.e., 2nd level friends). Since I see you have 118 on your 1st level your numbers are probably similar to mine.

But this isn't an accurate picture is it? There are many mutual acquintances that are in your 1st level/my 2nd level that I also know. I just haven't approached them to also join my network which they most probably would. Maybe I should, which would boost my overall numbers but I figure since they are connected to you, and we are connected together I have pretty good access to them.

But I have to question the notations about not wanting your LinkedIn network to grow as large as possible. Since it's impossible to know or anticipate who are what you may need to in the future, it just makes sense (to me) not to artficially limit the potential pool of people who could help you.

Here's an example. Several years ago my wife was looking for some expertise in the telecommunications industry in the UK. Using LinkedIn's capability to search profiles I descovered and individual who was in network (that I didn't even know about) through a connection to Victoria Mellor, CEO of Melcrum Communications, a 1st level connection of mine. I asked Victoria for an introduction and within a couple of days I was able to get this person on the phone with my wife.

There was literally no way I would have ever figured out this connection scenario without the benefit of LinkedIn. Nor would it probably have been possible with a very limited number of connections.

I don't have any problems or issues with getting too many interactions with those in my network. So I don't turn too many requests down, although I make it a point to ask people I don't know why they want to connect with me. If they don't answer or seem fishy in their reply I decline the invitation.