Marc,

I think there are two major reasons why people don't answer LinkedIn invitations.

One is that people use the default language and do not tell you why they are trying to contact you. They've just pulled your information from Outlook. I do think a more specific "no" function would alleviate this.

The second issue is that, as shocking as it may seem to many, there are a lot of people who are just thoroughly uninterested in LinkedIn. So your invitation either just gets deleted, or it's just an incredibly low priority for them to act upon.

posted July 14, 2007

The loss of the "No" button was a mistake, and the system should provide both invitation delivery and read receipts, but beyond that just don't see what they could do to address your issues. Even a read receipt can't be compelled. They certainly can't compel members to respond.

I frequently ignore invitations that come from people I don't know, especially when reading them on my mobile email, unless there is some reason that I want the connection - and always when there is no personal note with the invitation. If an unknown person can't make the effort to tell me why we should connect then I don't care to make the effort to respond.

posted July 14, 2007

Marc,

This goes beyond the invitation situation. The important question is: When is LinkedIn going to start acting like a true visionary company to integrate a sound business model with a strong focus on it's customers? That's the 64,000 dollar question

posted July 14, 2007

I went for weeks without a replenishment, after frequent requests and posting a question similar to this one. I received an answer from linkedin CS management and received a modest replenishment the following day. The lack of service is a concern, more so as I am a paying member.

Linkedins changes that just happen and are not clearly communicated to the membership is a contributing factor to. I do not understand why there is not an option to decline an invitation without causing someones rating from linkedin to be harmed.

Chuck Zdrojowy
ProfessionalOps@aol.com

posted July 14, 2007

Marc,
There does seem to be a problem with getting more invitations. I have spoke to a few members all were told more invitations were on the way but they never arrived. They all had the same CS rep handling their request. I have a feeling that person is not well trained or simply does not follow through. Try requesting more again and this time send an email to cs@linkedin.com you may have better luck.

Getting rid of the NO button was a huge mistake. Now we have the choice of accepting, saying I don’t know (name) or decide later. This creates a problem since there are people we don’t want to connect to but also don’t want their account to be restricted. We end up clicking decide later.

However, I will say this. I use the IDK button on people who claim to know me and don’t. It is not my fault they were too lazy to send me an free inmail and ask me or to read further in my profile and use my email address to send a regular invitation. Linkedin set up an automatic restriction after 5 IDK’s in order to prevent abuse of the system. People took advantage of the add (name) feature claiming to know people they don’t know and got restricted.

The vast majority of those IDK’s could have been avoided by using proper channels. I do feel 5 is a bit low, perhaps 10 would be better. However, many members continue to do exactly what they promised not to do in order to get the restriction lifted. Some have had their account restricted 2 or 3 times. That doesn’t sound like they are learning from their mistakes, does it.

All members need to respect the features we have and use the introduction requests or the regular invitations instead of taking the quick and easy way out and abusing the add(name) feature. Many of us have free inmails and people can contact us very easy to see if we want an invitation yet it is easier for them to abuse the feature and hope for the best. I no longer feel sorry for these folks.

I have 865 connections and have used less than 50 invitations and never once resorted to abusing the add name feature. Growing a network can be done through proper channels.

Sheilah

posted July 14, 2007

If you're requesting connections from people you know and they aren't responding, then I'd be concerned. However, if you don't know these people and they aren't responding, it's not too surprising, is it? An impersonal email isn't likely to get any kind of response because why would they bother?

posted July 14, 2007

LI needs to chew what it has in mouth and be ready for more in the pipeline...if they can not, hire more mouths and chew it up...but do it :)

posted July 14, 2007

After half a year struggling with LI's CS and receiving nothing but a polite boilerplate response with no follow up. I simply give up. I guess lots of LIONs has heard about my ordeal that I lost 410 invitation quotas day after I mass resent 300 of my outstanding invitations and with no explanation, it disappeared and despite 20 mails still heard no answer.

Speaking on decline rate or IDK, I rarely got any. The whole 2007, I only got ONE IDK out of the 50 invitations replenishment I received in Mar. I grow my 3,000+ network this year on a passive way. I guess LI limiting power networks to grow network is a big mistake, think how much opportunities the network will loss in attracting new members. With no invitations on hand, member can only rely on internal-networking and this kind of in-bleeding to most extant is unhealthy to all.

posted July 14, 2007

Marc:

Call me 646.296.5592 I have a solution for you.

Best,

Abir
Abirb12@yahoo.com
Open networker, Invite me

posted July 14, 2007

It is obvious from what I have been reading that LinkedIn is growing but their support structure has not grown or improved. You are correct, issues do go into a black hole. How do you resolve that? COMPETITION But, just like the other companies that have no competition, support will suffer or become non-existant and the only thing that matters to "High-Salaried" management is how far their paycheck is and what it will take to keep it that high. And if that means that their customers will suffer, so be it.

posted July 14, 2007

Marc, good description of the problem!

The SUCCESS of a NETWORKING SITE must be measured by the number of connections established among their members in a day. That number means how good or bad is the site for networking.

Looking at the initial page, where LinkedIn explains what it is (home page being logged out), we can see the site is:
1. To connect only with people that we know.
2. To Get a job
3. To Participate in questions/answers

...Nothing else!

Networking events are to meet new people so networking is getting connected with people that we do not know. Therefore, LinkedIn is not a place for networking because all its design is against that concept.

Networking is for open minded people. Those who remain within their same social network are limited.

People...Lets be open!...be free!

posted July 14, 2007

I agree with you on linkedin's shooting itself in the foot. Networking is about connecting with new people and leveraging that knowledge. If we only relied on the relationships we had in school or our first job, we would never get anywhere.

1. How many people have successfully gotten more invitations?
2. How many did they get?
3. How many times have they gotten replenished (is there a limit)?

posted July 14, 2007

Marc, I do have a similar problem as you have. I get blocked from classmates, and previous people that I used to work with, and the reason: TOO MANY NEW CONNECTIONS IN A SHORT TIME -- i.e. being penalized for network growth.... In my case it was not refusals. Even then the other rule is to block one for 5 refusals - It may be a lot if you have only 10 people linked to you, but when you reach one hundred that is only 5% of your list, if you have 500 it is only 1% - AFAIK know there is also no time lapse within which 5 refusals should occur, or rather that was not explained anywhere. I have given up on requesting to be opened again. I know that they are trying to block spammers (hence that option as well), but one has to be careful in which manner that is achieved.

posted July 15, 2007

I don’t have the expectation that LinkedIn is there to allow me free access to anyone I can see.
I expect to know those that are my first line and expect the respect and trust with newer members to take time and communication from me.
Then I have no problem getting to knowing their first line as I can chat about them if I need to, the next line I expect to be a little tricky but if I'm not selfish in my interaction with people I usually find that I don't have a problem.
If I may offer a suggestion without upsetting you too much more than you already seem to be, your problem may be your communication style.
From what I have read above in your question, and your response to people’s freely given assistance to you, I would not let you near anyone in my network, as they may get smashed by you in their inability to help you or live up to your expectations.

posted July 15, 2007

Hi Marc,

You 'd hit the nail on its head. Can't we seek legal action to protect our legal rights as LI customers? Paying customers, that is.

Just my 2 cents' worth. Cheers.

Johnny

posted July 15, 2007

Umm... with all due respect; I think it's more about the quality of the connections rather than the sheer number. Think about it. Perhaps LinkedIn needs a category for "interested parties", not well known by the account holder. You move from one to the other by having a personal connection. Really, if you have 30,000+ connections... how can you tell me (with a straight face) that you've actually MET all those folk? Come on... do the math.

It's about the quality, I don't think it's a business-card exchange system. Or at least, that' s not how I envision using it. Can you hit up J random stranger (just because you have an email addy) for a job/contract? It takes a personal touch.

IMHO. Tell me I'm wrong...
-edmund
(very GOOD question and point, maybe we need an architect?)

posted July 15, 2007

Beg and Pester!

I ran out and basically had to fight for more. I was told my invite acceptance was not high enough, however with nearly 2k in connections - I didnt see how that was possible.

I got an extra 500 in the end, so kind of gave up on LinkedIN in the end. But was sparked off again on recieving a few new invites.

This lack of usability will kill the original purpose of a networking site. It will end up a huge rolodex for recruiters.

posted July 15, 2007

Dear,

So far I never ran into issues with Customer Services, maybe because I never needed them, so far. I asked some questions & these were answered late and not with the quality you would expect.

I read many complaints in this Q&A section and in forums like "Get LinkedIn".

I don't understand why LinkedIn management does not react.

If complaints are false, then LinkedIn management should point that out & explain why all those accusations are false.

If all or some complaints are fair, then LinkedIn management should communicate how it will be fixed & by when.

I think LinkedIn Management could definitely improve how & how often it communicates with its customers.

Kind regards,

Peter De Groof
http://www.linkedin.com/in/peterdegroof

posted July 15, 2007

Marc, I appreciate your frustration. I too have experienced this. And, I'm curious about what you feel you'd like to have happen.

In other words, what can we or LinkedIn say or do to resolve this for you? I understand the problem and I'm not clear on the solution that will work for you.

Thanks so much,
-Preston

posted July 15, 2007

Marc,

My approach to LinkedIn is the following:

1. I'm focused on building a network of like-minded professionals in the IT, telecom, and Internet industries. I only send out invitations to those I feel are relevant to my business. I don't send mass invites...quanity is not my goal...quality is my objective. I always provide a reasonable explanation why the invitee should accept my invitation to connect.

2. LinkedIn is a business development tool for me. My goal is to generate business for me and my company and to help my network of connections to do the same. Why bother doing any of this if the end objective is not to generate business opportunities? Is this wrong?

3. I disagree that we should only be sending invitations and accepting invitations from people we know. That is completely counter-intuitive. In my opinion, the fundamental purpose of these networking sites, like LinkedIn, is to expand our personal/professional network of contacts. You really can only do that by reaching out to people you don't know and making a new connection. So, what is the deal with "Accept invitations only from people you know". Sounds like a lawyer getting involved and telling LinkedIn how to cover their back-sides legally.

4. I pretty much accept every invitation, even if it is mass generated and the invitation is not custom written to me. I figure a new connection may contain the nugget of gold that I am looking for. I see no down side to accepting every invitation that I get.

My question to the crowd, "Is it acceptable and feasible to use LinkedIn as a business development tool? Can I reasonably expect to generate business by building my network?"

posted July 15, 2007

Hi Marc,
You can :
- articulate your issue loudly as you have done there :)
- try to contact directly the lady in charge of the Customer Service
- be patient

Cheers
Catherine

posted July 15, 2007

Dear Marc,

I agree with Roger. It's a selective process. Here is my formula.

1. Know the person
2. If you don't know the person, get to know them.
3. If a person doesn't respond to a member's request, I make a personal request again via email. If they still don't respond I delete them no matter how many connections they have in their profile. Quality speaks louder to me than quantity. When I I inform them why they are being deleted I still give them a chance to respond. If they then dont' respond to me, they are removed.

I hope that this assists you. Look at it like managing a database of customers, the better your data, the better the marketing is going to be for you. I hold this same standard to my personal network.

Have a terrific day.

Cordially,
Monika M. Stickel
908-719-9511

posted July 15, 2007

After a while, you attain a status on this site where you will never have to send out invites. I must receive about 10 invites a day from people in all sorts of companies and levels. If you get to a place here that you answer questions and become reputable, then you will never need to worry about Linkedin restrcitions anymore. Try to become an open networker and this will never be a problem.

posted July 15, 2007

I am definitely newer to this deal than many of you, but I agree with Patricia Leigh above in part, and have a response to Edmund Biro - since I disagree with his apparent criticism of top links of people with 30,000 connections, or even any criticism of you, Marc, for your high number.

As I have noted in other answers, it is clear that Ron Bates can't possibly know all 32,000+ people personally. However, for those that are critical of the open networkers who are connecting to people they don't know, - I often defend people at that level (Ron Bates, you, etc.) because you all are critical the others in this conversation to even be able to connect or know the others are there - and to possibly have this conversation. We are essentially connected through you all. Likewise, I think it is perfectly fine for someone to sit back and simply accept as many connections as they are comfortable with - whether it is only 1 or 400 or 1000's. However everyone is important in the process.

As important in the process are those that don't want to connect - for whatever reason. I also think that Linkedin is having to balance a lot of tough (some legal issues) and while they may have areas they can do better, this is an organic process - and grows or changes with time. While I think that Linkedin ought to be mindful of you all in the mega-hub category since you do generate a lot of the ability for the system to even work beyond city boundaries, I have no doubt they are also having to deal with the criticisms of smaller networkers that often may provide the end result - actually work at X company, etc. - that is the goal someone is trying to link to. That person at X company might only have 10 links, but that connection may be the only one to the company. Again all are important in the process.

One thought I might suggest, Marc, is let your size network passively grow for a while and focus time in real-time networking in your community or in the country. I think you will grow steadily by just having such a large network and being open to those inviting you (and including your email address in your bio). You might find some organization, non-profit, or company that you help to network beyond your immediate professional goals, develop personal connections with those people, and trust that the system will end up bringing you contacts you need. I think since you are in the top linkedin people, the ability to use existing contacts well is as valuable as the strict number. Ron Bates may be hard for anyone to catch, but my guess is that there could be people below him in numbers who are actually leveraging their contacts even more effectively.

I think it worth noting that you are one of my first degree contacts - and since you are a mega-hub, it is worth thanking you for the effort (and head aches) you get with this - since I do think you are a very valuable part of the process. I have no doubt your time commitment is vast to this process, and I do think your contributions benefit many directly or indirectly connected to you.

As always, jtp.

posted July 15, 2007

I think the answer may lie not in anything we've done or are doing actively, but in trying to learn the lessons of MySpace/Facebook/Friendster and creating a different/sustainable model. Welcome to Web2.0 where this seems to be more tolerated than not.

Some observations.

1. I've looked at the cost of entry to LinkedIn, which is why I tend to be more passive at the notion of subscribing. If I were in a business where sales/networking/business development were at the core of my day-to-day, I might reconsider that. But I believe that for people like me, the entry bar for LI is far too prohibitive.
2. If I decided to subscribe as an "In" member and found that I wasn't receiving value for my dollar, I'd vote with my wallet rather than complaining (although I'd leave a complaint for the business too). It's when organizations aren't focused on maintaining their business model that they encounter trouble (how many dot.coms do we all remember that aren't there now because they didn't do just that).
3. How many people here actually pay? From what I can gather, if you don't spend, it appears you have little or no voice. Perhaps there should be a better feedback mechanism from LI to understand WHY their revenue model is prohibitive and doesn't entice people versus competing services that have a lower threshold. Someone once said that fast dimes are better than slow dollars -- i.e. you can sell 1,000,000 daily newspapers for $0.25, but no one will pay $10 for one.
4. How much of the "we don't want to respond, we don't want to wildly grow" do you think is the result of trying to hold back the floodgates and stemming growth until incubating investments can help support them? If LI doesn't have the infrastructure to support being larger, do you think it makes much sense to let growth run rampant in order to throttle a "we've grown beyond our means and can no longer support even our paying customers" type of situation? Hope that makes sense.

Oh, and as for just taking random requests from a blue-sky, I'm selective much like Roger. If the request does not appear to have mutual value or is simply likely to result in a SPAM-style addition to a mailing list, I'm far less likely to accept it as I get enough mail already.

posted July 15, 2007

I agree with James. I think that having a large enough network of connections in which one can search through and connect to the actual desired person is beneficial. And I understand how in some industries or personalities one might want to keep their network smaller and focused.

I don't think there is an ultimate right or wrong...just personal preference. Therefore, I don't think there should be a punishment or condemnation for either preference. I think that the system does a pretty good job at preventing spam and mass communication at the time so there really should be no reason for someone who wants their network to remain small to be upset when someone they don't know wants to share connections. You never know who is in their network that might be beneficial to your goals...mutually.

For me, I prefer to have a large network of connections of various degrees that I can network with. There may be an opportunity perfect for me that I'm not even looking for or a connection that I can help someone else make that has nothing really to do with me. I believe that if we all participate in helping each other find what we are looking for, there is no telling what we can all accomplish.

Thanks for being a part of connecting us all together and I'm happy to be a part of the connecting myself!

All the best-

Tom

posted July 15, 2007

I am fairly new to Linkedin and have not yet encountered such difficulties.
My goal is to expand my sphere of influence and I don't have any concerns about accepting or inviting those that I don't know. Isn't that the point?

My attitude is that all of us were included because someone has a degree of trust and regard for us. If I attach limits to how and why I am available I may be eliminating an opportunity to help myself or help another person.

That being said, I am practical in my approach and try to always include a quick note as to why we should connect with one another.

posted July 15, 2007

Some great responses here. I have one build on the initial question.

Given LinkedIn is powered by the users who continously build the system by bringing new users to the game, why do they not reward those users bringing in the most new users?

I guess this is becoming more of a vent, my point is they are ultimately dependent on the users to build the network so the IPO will be successful, economically I would think they would therefore want to make sure we are getting the best tool. That said, I love to read the responses to questions and have the opportunity to exchange thoughts.

posted July 15, 2007