Do all of you know that with LINKEDIN if you send an invite and receive a certain number of people responding with I DON'T KNOW - they restrict your account and you cannot send more invites? Also, if you receive too many incidences of restrictions, they SUSPEND your account for a period of time at least 30 days (eternity when actively sourcing - right?)
Linkedin does not educate members (non recruiters especially don't know this) that by simply clicking the I DON'T KNOW response that it is a mark against that person. They think it is harmless. LINKEDIN need to make that clear to everyone. Ultimately, who is penalized? The person that is just trying to connect with someone. I usually send a note saying that I have a job that matches their profile etc.
Linkedin also says to send invites to people you know. That makes absolutely no sense because - the reason you are sending in invite is to get connected to that person and be able to contact them. I accept invites all of the time from people I don't know.
Linkedin in is NOT responding to my requests to discuss and reconsider this 30 day suspension. I am so livid because they call you when they want to sell you a very expensive membership.
What are your thoughts?
I could not agree more - I have sent issues to LinkedIn on several things and the standard response is always "Can't help you" - it's ridiculous to only accept invites from people you know - and they market this as a business networking tool? Isn't one of the tenets of networking to meet people you don't know.
If I really don't want to connect with someone I just ignore the invite - I don't want to put anyone's membership in peril of being suspended.
I got a similar warning before. They are a profit driven organisation and most people use the website for free. They simply want the active members to pay more for the services. I don't sit and wait for the people to look at their email any more. I just pick up the phone and dial.
As usual, I could not have said it better than Sandra!
Sandra McCartt said:
If you offered your services for free and the person you were providing a free service for bitched about the way you you did it, the fact that they couldn't tell you to send them contact info for all your candidates and didn't have full access to everybody in your database and they wanted to contact everybody in your database. How helpful would you be? If you did give them access to your database for free, they contacted 50 of them a day, your candidates told them to leave them alone and complained to you. Would you cut off access to your database, send this non paying client a note to cut it out or you would no longer provide them a free service? If this non paying client told you it was ridiculous that you wouldn't let them contact anyone they wanted to in your database would you tell them they could go find another free source of candidates for free.
Services offered for free normally have some restrictions. If you don't like or agree with the rules either pay for the service or go find a better one for free. We throw fits about clients who won't work the way we want them to. Candidates who won't or don't work with us the way we think they should. Where did all of this sense of entitlement come from? We don't pay for our inventory (candidates) and half the time we don't call them back or respond when they apply. Now we are going to throw fits that a free source of inventory wants us to respect the rules of a free source.
Most businesses have to pay for inventory and they don't make the profit margin we do.
Good god Gertrude let's get real.
It is just that sending an invite suggesting a matching job is not a great practice, that's all. I suggest sending invitations to connect only to people who will likely accept them. In addition to people whom you have met, you can invite people who are "open networkers", "toplinked", etc. (We shouldn't assume that fellow group members would always want to connect.)
Even if you invitation to connect is not marked IDK but is not accepted either, it is wasted.
There are other excellent ways to get in touch with people regarding jobs. One is sending messages to your group members, there's no need to connect for that (but make sure the person qualifies to hear about your opening, because otherwise they can mark your message as spam). Another is InMail; yes, those are paid, but they work beautifully.
You can also: "share" content on LinkedIn, post in groups, post in Q&A, post on your company status, create a group and invite to join it.... lots of ways to get that communication going.
Regarding the suspension problem...I have also heard that some people have multiple profiles on LinkedIn... but we shouldn't do that, of course.
Just thought I would also add ... LinkedIn will also restrict the number of connections you connect with even when you are a paid subscriber as again this is not a Job Board it's a Social Network. LinkedIn does not want to cheapen the service for why most of its users are actually on the Web Service. They will observe how you add connections organically over time as supposed to just adding connections systematically -without any kind of relationship. I get complaints from recruiters ( Paid Subscribers) who only use LinkedIn as a Job Board - they get a warning - then they are not allowed to add any more connections for a certain period of time abuse it further ... Well ... Just a side note Facebook will also warn you if you add people you don't know to your friend list again organic growth is key ... "Social Media ..."
Marie, if you can get the email of the contact - you can go to the Add Connections and insert the email ( From your personal account - not in the Paid Subscription service) - you can do this from dusk till dawn ... : >) I do that a lot. Jokes aside ... Irina also made some great suggestions if you don't have the email address of the contact.
Recruiters have become more irritating than fruit flys and the worst spammers on the planet. We damn sure have figured out how to differentiate ourselves , have we not.!
Actually, I was under the impression that the IDK "flag" was common knowledge by at least most active LI users. I wasn't there from day one, but have used the tool for approximately 6 1/2 years and LI's "suggestion" to only connect with people you know has been in place that entire time as far as I remember. Likewise, the ability to report questionable practices has been provided to ensure a quality experience for those that comply with the core functionality and expect others to do the same.
Personally, I've NEVER invited anyone that I have not met or at least had a "virtual" interaction with to join my network and don't anticipate doing so in the foreseeable future. I understand as a recruiting professional, cold calling or cold emailing, etc., is part of the deal, but that doesn't mean it is a welcome practice by the general population. Therefore, rejection is also part of the package, is it not? Telemarketing, door-to-door soliciting and panhandling comes to mind!
As others have stated, each person has their own preference and purpose for how and why they use LI for professional networking. I happen to know plenty of people who refuse 100% of invites from anyone they don't know. There are others at the complete opposite side of the spectrum that go out of their way to add "random strangers" to their network as if connection collecting is somehow going to lead to winning the lottery.
Unfortunately, the overall LI user experience has diminished significantly over the past 3-4 years. IMHO, this isn't LI's fault, but the behavior of people that conveniently forget to keep in mind the "professional" part of professional networking. The majority of connection requests I get are either the generic LI wording or something equally unimpressive and impersonal.
Ironically, an existing connection recently sent me a LI intro request to meet another existing connection - their note was appropriately professional and it stood out enough that I thanked them for their courtesy and consideration as that is practically always lacking from similar requests that I get multiple times per week/month. Not that I don't respond to the others, but that is a perfect example of how to differentiate in a positive manner versus being a presumptuous, entitled pest.
I've had mixed, but decent results using other methods of contacting people. Usually, if I'm not connected, I find a mutual group and send a message through that channel, using the "send a message" feature, not the "invite to connect" feature. And, no matter what I customize the message to be absolutely clear and as respectful of that person's time by stating the essential info which minimizes their effort needed to reply.
It's not free Sandra. They sell advertising on their site. The membership is the value. They IPO'd because recruiters use their site. If you don't like something, you should be heard. Not saying it's right to send out unsolicited connect requests Just saying if someone wants an explanation, one should be forthcoming. We don't have to sit with our tail between our legs because we're not paying directly.
Lol, well Bill, if I don't pay for something I think of it as free. If my presence gives somebody else something to sell great. If I abuse the rules to the point that I get my nose slapped I think I better put my tail between my legs and following the rules. My take is that rules are made so everybody can utilize a service the way they want to as long as they don't step on somebody else's toes. If anybody is blasting out 50 requests to connect a day they are going to get popped as a spammer. If I can make 65k in three months with aprox. 75.00 cost to me or no cost. I am going to be very respectful of rules whether I like them or not.