OMM generated Group Manifesto

« Back to Previous Page
5
0

In line with PHIL FRIEDMAN's advocacy for "speaking up now", perhaps there would be value in articulating a key set...

Please to read the entire article.

Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on June 30, 2018 12:00 am
1 views
0
Private comment
With all due respect, Peter, and thanking you for the call-out, I have to say I think that approach would be counter-productive and engage us all in a prolonged (endless?) discussion in an attempt to achieve an elusive consensus. However, that does not mean I disagree with your implicit objective.

I'd like to suggest instead that each of us posts in this thread a list of our individual "top ten" tools, features, whatever we each would consider essential if we could only have ten. Then Christine or Samantha can have them objectively tabulated to establish the ten most-cited. Done. No pre-discussion. Just an automatic consensus, which we could then, as you suggest, present as a guiding manifesto to the Groups "team". Not that they would pay any attention. But at least the exercise will not divert us from seeing that Sophie Bonnet is not engaging with LIGOMMs in any meaningful way.

Cheers!
Marked as spam
Posted by PHIL FRIEDMAN (Discussions: 1, Comments: 18)
Replied on June 29, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Both activities
a) articulating and identifying shared requirements
b) articulating key principles
contribute to the implicit objective, and neither needs to be counter-productive or prolonged.
Happy to run with your proposed activity first as it will make my proposed activity even easier than I had anticipated.
Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on June 30, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
I only have two PHIL FRIEDMAN and Sophie Bonnet:

1. All of the Group Admin tools that were removed back in October 2015 need to be give back to Group Admins ASAP. That will help fix Sophie's posting about spam management - there is significantly more spam in groups since Group Managers lost those tools!
2. The capacity of Group Members to be able to adjust the position of groups in their My Groups list needs to be returned. We used to be able to do this so I would put the most interesting groups (generally smaller) at the top of the list. Now, they are in order of the number of new conversations, which means we have to go down several screens to get to the most interesting groups!

Once that has been done, we can talk about what groups need to improve in the future!
Marked as spam
Posted by John Marrett (Discussions: 0, Comments: 7)
Replied on June 30, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
As a reminder, it's necessary to break these "Top Ten" down to discrete units. No compound requirements, John Marrett. Okay, here are my nominees, in no particular order of preference:

1. The ability for a group member to elect to be notified by email when a new comment appears in a conversation thread he or she is following.

2. The ability for a group member to receive a summary of new conversations posted in the group, either daily, weekly, or not at all.

3. Daily notifications to group owners and managers that there are posts waiting in the moderation queue and membership requests waiting in the membership queue and the option to receive such notifications via email.

4. The ability to designate a group "private" with membership subject to approval, and to require that only members can post new conversations to the group.

5. The ability for group owners and managers to filter posts for topicality and to delete those deemed unsuitable to the group.

cont... Pt. II

Marked as spam
Posted by PHIL FRIEDMAN (Discussions: 1, Comments: 18)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Pt. II ...
6. The ability for group owners and managers to place members on local moderation and, after warnings concerning inappropriate activity, permanently remove and block them from posting and/or membership.
7. The ability for group owners and managers to opt out of (or switch off) LinkedIn auto-moderation, and to block LI from changing any of the group's local member settings.
8. The ability for group owners and managers to elect to have a "Promotions" tab for posts that are primarily promotional in nature, but relevant to the group's mission and sphere of interest.
9. The ability for group owners and managers to "Feature" or pin a discussion at the top of the group discussions page.
10. A structure that enables group owners to monetize their activities in growing, nurturing, and managing popular groups.
Marked as spam
Posted by PHIL FRIEDMAN (Discussions: 1, Comments: 18)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Marked as spam
Posted by Samantha Bailey (Discussions: 1, Comments: 7)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Marked as spam
Posted by Samantha Bailey (Discussions: 1, Comments: 7)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Marked as spam
Posted by Samantha Bailey (Discussions: 1, Comments: 7)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Marked as spam
Posted by Samantha Bailey (Discussions: 1, Comments: 7)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Marked as spam
Posted by Samantha Bailey (Discussions: 1, Comments: 7)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Marked as spam
Posted by Samantha Bailey (Discussions: 1, Comments: 7)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
A properly working search function for the members list, from where you can not only change posting permissions, but also block people.

The block function back in the list of items to be moderated (either flagged by LinkedIn, a member from the group, or because (violating) member is still on the moderation list.

The option to put new members by default on an X-days moderation.

REMOVE the option for members to -without interference of a group owner or moderator- to invite and accept other people.

Unlimited characters in thread comments.

Option to sort threads in groups. Most active threads, and threads that have just been replied to, move to top.
Marked as spam
Posted by Arno Enzerink (Discussions: 0, Comments: 4)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
I like Phil's top 10 but I did not see where I can make the group a moderated group globally. Moderation needs to be from a coarse adjustment all the way to a fine adjustment at the individual level.
Marked as spam
Posted by John Jones (Discussions: 368, Comments: 3052)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
John Jones I don't believe you can do it anymore. What I have been doing is:

- for small groups going through and manually putting every member of the group except known positive contributors on moderation.
- for large groups, as soon as I approve people, click on members, sort by join date and put all new members on moderation

You can handle one page at a time and put everyone on that page on moderation.

As people prove themselves, they can be taken off moderation.

It was a ton of work but worth it.
Marked as spam
Posted by Anne Thornley-Brown MBA (Discussions: 1, Comments: 9)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Man I dunno. I have given my feedback so many times over the years it become exhausting. Leave it with me. I will work on it.
Marked as spam
Posted by Anne Thornley-Brown MBA (Discussions: 1, Comments: 9)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Anne Thornley-Brown MBA There are several ways to engage in this activity. I expect that there will be a core of requirements held in common by many OMMs. Then there will be others that are specific to different classes of group, sometimes being in conflict, other times just being "different". Then there will be those that are relatively unique / distinctive.

On the assumption that there will be a portion in common that are not even being delivered effectively by the LI Group platform, you can probably afford to "wait a while" and see what emerges. Then, you only need to give attention to the "things that have been missed".
Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
It's okay I'll tackle it when I have moment.
Marked as spam
Posted by Anne Thornley-Brown MBA (Discussions: 1, Comments: 9)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
All must haves:

1) Nesting replies

2) Sort conversations by most read, most commented, newest conversation, newest commented .

3) Group statistics based on: member breakdown (where are they located, what industries are they in); growth and engagement (membership growth/retention/attrition, ratio of conversations to comments)
Marked as spam
Posted by Chris Herbert (Discussions: 0, Comments: 6)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Anne Thornley-Brown MBA, My Linkedin group has 75,000 members and I had an off-shore contractor go through and put everyone on moderation back in 2015 after they got rid of the group global moderation. All new members are immediately set to moderation. My group has absolutely no spam. The whole thing was a very unpleasant experience and caused me to move my group off of Linkedin. I really hope they fix Linkedin groups but I won't be coming back except to engage with peers and recruit them into my off-site group. My off-site group is much larger ( > 200K members) and much more engaged than it ever was on Linkedin.
Marked as spam
Posted by John Jones (Discussions: 368, Comments: 3052)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
The one thing no one has mentioned is making it as easy as it once was for prospective members to search for groups.
Marked as spam
Posted by Fran Simon, M.Ed. (Discussions: 0, Comments: 4)
Replied on July 1, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Hi John Jones interesting information, what is the software or social did you used for your group now?
Marked as spam
Posted by Enrico Filippucci (Discussions: 0, Comments: 13)
Replied on July 4, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
I have been collating the requirements to date and will publish them at the end of the week 9-13 July, allowing additional time for others to contribute, given that some may have reduced engagement in light of the break that LinkedIn staff have taken over the last week.
Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on July 6, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
If it's possible to have all new discussions on moderation with comments off moderation again (a) that would be a blessing and (b) would necessitate a whole-group "on/off moderation" switch because, as Anne and John have done, I put 354,000 members on moderation.

By the way, it's no longer possible to put thousands on moderation for two reasons: (1) they removed the tracking URLs to indicate which page of your moderating efforts you're on (so if you lose your place or go to bed, you have to start at the beginning and hit "next" until you get back to where you were) and (2) we used to be able to see 50 members at once; now it's 10, quintupling the required effort.

Oh why am I bothering?
Marked as spam
Posted by Joe Hage (Discussions: 1, Comments: 2)
Replied on July 7, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Marked as spam
Posted by Joe Hage (Discussions: 1, Comments: 2)
Replied on July 7, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Thanks, I will add them to the list.
Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on July 7, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Peter, it is particularly generous and good of you to have offered to collate and report on the responses. However, if you will refer back to our original exchange, the raison d'etre for the structure agreed upon was to shorten the time from input of suggestions to production of a list of Ten Key Requirements -- so as to be able to put that in front of Sophie and Mitali and their re-development working group BEFORE they set off down pathways from which there will be no easy return. I should, therefore, like to suggest that a deadline be set and the report tabulated and presented here at a maximum ten days from now. So that the LI people might be moved to stop asking for input and then act as though they are not getting it. The starting point is ten clear points of consensus to be responded to by Sophie, et. al. Or in the event be shown once and for all as not really caring what LIGOMMs have to say.
Marked as spam
Posted by PHIL FRIEDMAN (Discussions: 1, Comments: 18)
Replied on July 12, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
PHIL FRIEDMAN If you look back to previous posts, you will see that I had already set a deadline. Taking into account that LI staff were having a break in the week of 2-6 July and therefore that participants might not be as active here, I had proposed that I would collate comments at the end of the week 9-13 July (ie now), allowing people more time to contribute. As can be seen, there are only a small number of contributions, so I am happy to extend for another week and summarise at the end of the week 16-20 July. Perhaps some additional promotion / encouragement should occur so that we have a broader range of contributors and hence a richer set of functions and priorities?
Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on July 13, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
As I have thought about requirements myself, it occurs to me that these can be expressed at multiple levels - OMM requirements, member requirements, platform requirements. I suggest that, in the first instance, requirements at the OMM / member level are more helpful, as there may be a number of different ways in which LI might achieve the fulfilling of the requirements, making their expression in these terms a more persistent and valuable point of reference.
Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on July 13, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
My initial set of requirements for members (prospective and actual):
1) Ability to easily find groups and discussions of interest to them
2) Ability to easily find and read new discussions and comments since previous visit (is most recent additions)
3) Ability to contribute multimedia content - text, images, docs, links
4) Ability to include links to related comments in other discussions and other groups
5) Ability to manage preferences in relation to participation, contribution and notifications

OMMs
1) Ability to build participation and contribution (not just membership)
2) Ability to easily facilitate and encourage discussions of interest to members
3) Ability to manage and deal with off-topic comments through to adverse member behaviours
4) Ability to make announcements and feature active and engaging discussions
5) Ability to compare activity with other groups
Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on July 13, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Thank you, Peter, for the clarification. I look forward to seeing the results of the tabulation. And to reading Sophie’s and Mitali’s respective responses. I do not personally hold out any hope for the survival of Groups in any form recognizable as what we knew prior to the last time LI revamped Groups. For I am convinced that LI actually despises true professional networking and engagement. And much prefers to churn point-and-click activity that makes the platform appear more active than it really is.
Marked as spam
Posted by PHIL FRIEDMAN (Discussions: 1, Comments: 18)
Replied on July 13, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
@Peter. A little context: OMM groups are often unlike other groups. OMMs are typically busy, independent-minded self-starters, community managers/leaders *as well as* business owners/employers or CEOs/executives/dept. heads/team leaders, etc. What OMMs are generally *not* are followers. IMHO, any attempt to herd OMMs, en masse, in any given uniform direction would fit the textbook definition of a classic exercise in futility. A little over 50 LIGOMM members were tagged in this discussion. Those who received/saw/reacted to notifications and are still engaged with/active on/see merit in LI/LI Groups and who wish to follow this discussion, will probably be following it. Those OMMs still active here who also feel moved to participate directly either have already commented or will comment in due course (time/willingness/confidence in this 2018 Groups Redesign process permitting). At a conservative estimate, the 10 respondents here so far, represent 1m+ group members/LI users between them.
Marked as spam
Posted by Samantha Bailey (Discussions: 1, Comments: 7)
Replied on July 14, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Samantha Bailey Thanks. I am fine with that. The content contributed will be what it will be. If more contribute and a stronger sense of common requirement emerges, that will be a more powerful message. Either way, we have no control over what LI will do with what is collated and presented. It may be that once shared, this prompts further comment - as it is easier to pick and contribute to gaps, than start with a blank sheet of paper. We will just have to wait and see what emerges.
Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on July 14, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on July 16, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
There is more analysis that could be applied to these requirements. At present, I have simply attempted to express the core requirement and indicate whether it is a requirement for a member or for an OMM. I have captured the information in a spreadsheet so they can be categorised, sorted, filtered, etc.

You will see that the requirements range from the very broad to the quite specific. Some of them express "user requirements" and others are "platform requirements". Establishing some categories could be helpful. Developing some underlying principles can be a much more valuable input into influencing design activity (which is where I was heading with the notion of a manifesto).
Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on July 16, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Peter, I for one thank you for your efforts here. I believe, however, that presenting a list of 37 some items only encourages the continuation of a policy of DOD. And that if there is any response at all to the list of 37 items you've compiled, it will be "Thank you, the team will certainly review your input as it moves forward and we'll get back to you. [Maybe in a decade or so or never.]"

My purpose in suggesting that we limit the list (for now) to 10 items that cropped up most frequently in the suggestions submitted was to present something so relatively brief it would have to be answered -- at the risk of being shown not to care at all what LIGOMMs have to say or suggest.

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/8435212/8435212-6424695668207607811

See my explanation elsewhere in these LIGOMM group discussions. Cheers!
Marked as spam
Posted by PHIL FRIEDMAN (Discussions: 1, Comments: 18)
Replied on July 16, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
PHIL FRIEDMAN There is no intention on my part to "present" the list of 37 items to LI (although I realise that LI can see the list already). I was publishing this as a work-in-progress, with several elements in mind:
a) it may prompt comment on "more important" requirements missing from the list
b) it may prompt endorsement of particular requirements by others, thereby increasing the "popularity" of an "emerging top 10"
c) it may prompt suggestions as to ways in which "commonality" can be identified, leading to a more valuable "top ten"

In many respects, there is no rush - not that I am trying to drag this out!! But LI are already doing what they are doing. This, if anything, is more likely to be about influencing future "things they do", as I understand changes are close to emerging, if not already doing so - one only needs to contemplate how group discussion content is appearing in feeds in different ways now to realise that some effects of integration are already emerging.
Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on July 16, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Phil, I think your experiment is likely to prove what you want to prove but that does not mean that LI are not listening or that we are not influencing them. One only needs to look at the list of 37 to see the different ways in which needs / desires are being expressed and with a "business analysts eye" how they need to be consolidated, filtered, assessed, reorganised, etc, etc in order to be of use to a platform product manager or a platform designer.

A better experiment (in my view) would be to provide a more organised and analysed set of requirements, that distinguishes between what we might call member experience requirements and system requirements, and which conveys a clearer articulation of requirements and outcomes (such that it is easier to assess cost of provision vs value derived - which will always be part of the functional enhancement delivery process).

Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on July 16, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Another aspect to the experiment is that LI will have a range of design decision criteria that we will never have visibility of. These will influence what is pursued and not pursued, so if we want to have any sort of influence, the experiment needs to take account of the inevitable LI right to decide what LI decides (as they are the owners and investors in the platform). A common approach to this is to explore and better understand mutually desired outcomes - which may be a point of commonality that can be achieved without the restrictions of "commercial realities" and "IP issues" and "market considerations" that will always come into play in these areas.

Again, this is part of the rationale behind development of a manifesto that expresses key principles - as they are more likely to be influential in the design process and may be points around which meaningful dialogue and engagement can occur.
Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on July 16, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
A further aspect to any experiment and ongoing engagement needs to take into account the timeframes for cycle from requirements gathering through to functional delivery. There will be a lot of activity already underway over which there will be no influence or impact. So the delivery of functionality that does not address our list will not be a surprise. It might well be that a "good idea", even if it is a "top idea" might take six or nine months to emerge. I am not sure what the release cycles are like for LI. I do know that with the new UI back in 2015, even when it was first released in USA, it was nearly two months before I experienced it in Australia - so that gives an interesting indication about some elements of the release cycle (at least when delivering a major functional release).
Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on July 16, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Peter, you say, "... there is no rush - not that I am trying to drag this out!! But LI are already doing what they are doing. This, if anything, is more likely to be about influencing future "things they do", as I understand changes are close to emerging, if not already doing so ...."

Why then are we bothering to respond to Sophie's ongoing questioning in this and other groups? Consider that if we cannot get LI to listen to us now (or couldn't since Sophie and her team first announced their existence), what would lead you (or anyone) to believe that we might get them to listen or pay the slightest attention to us in future?

An upshot of the conversation going on in this group since Sophie appeared, is that there is a conceptual gap between many experienced LIGOMMs and the LI Groups Revamp team concerning the fundamental nature of Groups and how they need to function. Having this discussion remain perpetually a "work in progress is not an objective I personally share, thank you!
Marked as spam
Posted by PHIL FRIEDMAN (Discussions: 1, Comments: 18)
Replied on July 16, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Peter, to my mind that is all pure poppycock, suited only to keeping a fruitless conversation going in perpetuity. It is almost three years since LI launched its attack on Groups — for make no mistake, that’s what it was, an attack.

When Sophie Bonnet announced her arrival on the scene and asked to join this group, she did not indicate in any way that any of the major restructuring decisions had already been made. Indeed, quite to the contrary. So your interpretation of (apology for) the current state of affairs is simply split off from reality. Either Sophie and her “team” were incredibly naive or she was , as I suspected and stated many times, playing out a strategy of DOD. You pick, but keep in mind that as recently as today, Sophie continues to post solicitations for input on myriad aspects, even a survey, with the clear implication that it is worthwhile to respond.

You say this is all still a work in progress, and that you hope to influence future decisions, whatever those may be. Your prerogative. But I personally have no interest in a work that remains in progress in perpetuity. And in the absence of any response from the LI team to even ten simple core suggestions for tools and features, I submit it’s time to move on.
Marked as spam
Posted by PHIL FRIEDMAN (Discussions: 1, Comments: 18)
Replied on July 17, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Anyone interested in moving a strong group en block is invited to look at the new not-for-profit, member-owned platform that will accommodate professional- and industry-oriented groups and give them the support to thrive —

http://www.OpenWorldNorthAmerican.org

Cheers!
Marked as spam
Posted by PHIL FRIEDMAN (Discussions: 1, Comments: 18)
Replied on July 17, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Marked as spam
Posted by PHIL FRIEDMAN (Discussions: 1, Comments: 18)
Replied on July 17, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
PHIL FRIEDMAN There is no intent to keep a conversation going in perpetuity. I accept that you regard my views as poppycock and discussion and engagement as fruitless. There is no intent on my part to attempt to convince you otherwise.

I am not going to waste time on interpreting what may or may not have been said or implied by what was said. There are others who have more direct contact than you or me who are able to evaluate what is and isn't happening.

You may wish to consider the features that are emerging and form your own view as to what LI is or isn't doing right now, consistent with the messages that have been conveyed here, in other groups, and in other LI channels for engaging with LI members - see https://www.linkedin.com/groups/8435212/8435212-6423281922935390208
Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on July 17, 2018 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Further refinement and collation of requirements, following the nominal period for "submission". No additional requirements submitted since the initial "list of 37". Further refinement entails:
a) Identifying a capability to which each requirement applies
b) Sorting by capability and by role utilising the capability (OMM or member)
See https://www.dropbox.com/s/sebys8vldn2q445/OMM-Manifesto-v0-2.pdf?dl=0

This could lead to articulation of:
a) key capabilities
b) key outcomes sought
providing more effective input into platform design considerations and prioritisation, and leaving LI to determine the functionality they might offer to enable the outcomes to be realised, to the mutual benefit of LI, OMMs and LI members.
Marked as spam
Posted by Peter Murchland (Discussions: 1, Comments: 47)
Replied on July 22, 2018 8:00 pm
« Back to Previous Page