Due to the just-introduced Commercial Use Limit on Search, many LinkedIn members are hitting the search quota for the month in the first day or two of January 2015 - and have to wait another month to search again.

LinkedIn didn't say how many searches are "too many"; the experience shows it's around sixty searches for one month.

I find limiting the search for unpaid accounts reasonable. It's not new; a number of commercial search systems have similar limitations.

If you are struggling with the new limits on searching and are not ready to go with a paid account yet:

1) There are a number of ways to search that are not counted in the monthly quota. These ways are no substitute for the advanced member search, but can be quite useful.

This includes:

2) Naturally, Googling for LinkedIn profiles ("X-Raying") remains unlimited!

Use this Custom Search Engine to X-Ray LinkedIn:

http://bit.ly/Search-LinkedIn

(I have updated the Search Engine URL to provide up to 1,000 results.)

Here are some example uses:

Enjoy!

>> Let's connect on LinkedIn (I can't accept due to LinkedIn limitations but I will invite you back)

>> Follow me on Twitter: @braingain

Views: 1029

Comment by Nicholas Meyler on March 11, 2015 at 4:01pm

LinkedIn has not given me my email quota, although I received 6 responses yesterday (all with the headline "we will credit you 1 inmail").   I pointed this out to them, and they generously gave me 1 inmail for my troubles (I mailed them all six to show them what I was talking about).

They blithely ignored that, didn't apologize, and also ignored that I pointed out multiple bugs and defects in the system.  For instance, they are incorrectly showing me with a 3% response rate (my response rate is about 25%, over a period longer than a year)... and their 'feedback' score function has been stuck on the same number for the past three months, so obviously broken.

In addition to all the fake profiles and the continued scalping of our money, and violations of the terms of the agreement, this is just another problem, but it clearly shows an intent to defraud and general negligence, I think.

Comment

You need to be a member of RecruitingBlogs to add comments!

Join RecruitingBlogs

Subscribe

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

Just enter your e-mail address below

Webinar

LIMITED TICKETS

RecruitingBlogs on Twitter

Groups

© 2019   All Rights Reserved   Powered by

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