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?

Views: 2107

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Marie,

I haven't really started using LI much yet, but I did know about the "I don't know" and suspensions.

I think the cost for the LI "recruiter" plans are way off base. Do you have any kind of the paid accounts? I am going to sign for one, but am still deciding between one of the "business", "sales" or "talent" plans.

How long have you been trying to contact them about your issue? 

Marie - I think this is a perfect argument for why linkedin is NOT a job board. Some people simply don't want to be contacted by recruiters. That's why LinkedIn gives them the option of keeping their network closed and saying "I don't know" when someone that, well, they don't know - tries to connect.

I understand your frustration, and have had friends/co-workers get locked out because of too many rejects, but the reality is if you want to treat Linkedin like a job board (sourcing resumes) it's only fair that you pay for it.

When I was a TPR I never paid for linkedin - I would call the company the potential candidate worked at and asked for them. During that conversation I would ask to connect on linkedin and get their email address. You can also try joining groups they're in and connect that way.

I completely understand your frustration and don't disagree... however some people are very particular about their networks. They may have "career opportunities" selected but that doesn't mean they want you in their network. They'd probably be happy to accept an inmail, but allowing you into their network could mean something entirely different to them, that's all.

And yes LinkedIn could do a better job of communicating the consequences to all members, paid or not.

Linkiedin want you to buy and send inmails.  They hide behind the cloak of privacy but it's about making a buck.  And yes, they don't respond to you unless you are going to buy something or a big enough customer.  

You may try putting this on twitter.  Usually companies are more sensitive to what is being said about them there.

This has happened because recruiters have gone nuts sending requests to anybody and everybody to the point that people are sick to death of recruiter spam. I am not saying that you have done this but with the number of recruiters working LinkedIn it has created a problem. I use it a lot but am careful to use a connection to ask for a referral or send an in mail first concerning a job opportunity before I send a connection request. I look at a profile. If that person has changed jobs within the last year they probably are not interested in talking to a recruiter about another one if their background is stable.

You should have gotten a warning or two that you were nearing the limit of "I don't know this person". If you did and disregarded those nd continued to send requests that is why your account was suspended. It works better to see if someone belongs to a group, join that group then send a connection request as a fellow group member. Those are less likely to cause problems with your account.
Just my take but my attitude is if I am getting something for free that is making me money I am damn careful not to abuse it. If I'm not paying for it they really don't owe me much in the way of customer service. I can sure show old Oscar and tell them to piss off anytime. All they lost was a bitchy non paying customer, they got millions of those. What I lose is a way to make money for free and I don't gots a lot of those.

Hi Marie,

The same thing happened to me sometime last year.  I was not able to connect with anyone for 3 days. I did at some point go past the amount of invites we are allowed.  I sent an email request to customer service asking them to give me more invites and they did. This might come up in the future. Join groups and connect with most members for free.

Regards,

Nick Ramos

While true, they don't owe you much explanation, LI is notoriously bad on responding to even paying customers.  

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.

Dear recruiters,
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.

As usual, I could not have said it better than Sandra!

Sandra McCartt said:

Dear recruiters,
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.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Subscribe

All the recruiting news you see here, delivered straight to your inbox.

Just enter your e-mail address below

Webinar

RecruitingBlogs on Twitter

© 2022   All Rights Reserved   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service