For those of you tuning in for your (somewhat) regular fix on emergency management and homeland security commentary, I apologize for this quick detour. I encourage you, however, to read on and provide your thoughts and feedback on a matter which relates to how you are able to view my posts. There are a few inconvenient practices out there which I feel a need to address.
While I have a humbling and ever growing number of people who follow my blog directly at www.triecker.wordpress.com, many read my posts through a variety of LinkedIn discussion groups. Some of these groups were created and simply exist publicly, while others are members-only and diligently maintained by moderators who do great work to keep certain posts out of their group, such as those that are largely irrelevant and those which blatantly serve no other purpose than to market products and services. As a member of several of these discussion groups, I am greatly appreciative of the time and effort these moderators put in. I do, however, have some important feedback.
As I have been blogging for a few years now and cross posting to several LinkedIn discussion groups, I’ve encountered some practices with moderators with which I disagree. Most recently, a discussion thread which originated from one of my blog posts was, inexplicably, shut down and closed to further comment. The discussion in the thread was lively, with several people contributing to an excellent dialogue. There didn’t appear to be any nastiness or inappropriate behavior, and all comments were on topic. The thread was shut down with no notice, publicly or privately. I’m not aware of there being any automatic limits on replies, but if there are, I don’t see a reason why. This was an unfortunate occurrence which limited productive dialogue of your members.
Second, there are several of these groups that have an anti-spam feature. On the surface, this is excellent! In practice, especially for someone who appreciates active dialogue with those who comment, it’s a royal pain in the ass. Essentially, after I reach some magic number of replies within a discussion thread, my replies will then go off into the ether, awaiting approval by the moderators before they are posted. This process severely stalls great dialogue.
Lastly, many of these groups have certain rules which disallow posts which include blatant marketing content. This is a great rule, as many of us have received notice from open groups with posts which are 100% pure marketing – which is not a reason why most people join these groups. That said, these rules have been applied a bit too strictly and without common sense. I’ve had moderators contact me (and some who don’t), refusing to post an article, simply because I include the name of my company and a link to our webpage at the bottom of my blog. I’ve had others refuse to post an article because I include a sentence or two at the end of my blog about the services my company provides. Allow me to make a few points with this… 1) The vast majority of my blogs run from 500-800 words. The inclusion of my company name/web address, or a sentence or two at the end of that post related to the services my company provides does not make my post an advertisement. I’d like to think there is still plenty of intellectual value to what I’m writing about. 2) This is LinkedIn. It’s a social media platform for professionals. That means that a certain amount of professional promotion should be expected. 3) Having given plenty of presentations for trade shows and membership groups, their guidelines regularly allow the ‘soft sell’, which means that while the bulk of your presentation is not directly about marketing your business, they usually allow a minute or two at the end to mention what your company does. This is a pretty fair courtesy which I think is quite reasonable for discussion groups to apply.
Final words – Moderators, I greatly appreciate the time you put in and what you do. Seriously. You help keep a lot of crap and spam away from our inboxes and notifications. I implore you, however, to remember what the intent of LinkedIn is, and with that in mind apply the rules of your discussion groups to maximize dialogue for the benefit of your members.
- Thank you.
<no marketing message posted here>
Timothy Riecker, CEDP
The Contrarian Emergency Manager 
A thoughtful post. I’d go a step further. Yes, there is a problem with blatant advertising presented to the exclusion of all analytical discussion. However, a) I’d like to know someone’s professional affiliation and possible conflicts-of-interest that could bias their comments, and b) if a writer’s professional affiliation provides access to useful information and experience germane to the topic at hand, I’d prefer that we get the benefit of those resources rather than censor them for exaggerated fear of sounding too commercial.
Preach it brother Tim