Chris:

You're right - not much to disagree with. I've read of people having their accounts on LinkedIN frozen because of the IDKs. That leads me to wonder if this is common, how many IDKs are required for the sanction, and what can be done about it. For example, if I mistakenly click the IDK button, and then realize it was an error on my part, can I correct it?

Grayson

I have been a fan of this approach for quite a while ...

Remember, none of the original Lions have been allow to send out invites in almost two years -- "BY DEFINITION, LIONS CAN'T SEND INVITES" -- This is because the current policies of LinkedIn Management were designed to taken our founding members ...

So nothing about this IDK stuff has anything to do with any "Senior Lions" ... we don't use the IDK button and we don't send out Invites.

However, the Lions have allowed membership growth -- which means we have two new types of Lions --

Junior Lions -- those who have been Lions for "awhile" BUT are still allowed to send out Invites

Lion Cubs -- those new to Lions and often new to LinkedIn

EVERY DOCUMENTED IDK has come from these new members -- NOT the Adult Lions ...

Therefore, it makes total sense to not include ANY CUB in ANY INVITE List for at least one, and perhaps two, cycles of Invite List distributions.

Everyone can still download and send out invites -- they just can't be included in the Downloadable Lists. So they really won't have a slower connection growth rate, they have to do more of the asking Initially. Once they have to do "a bit of asking first", I think they are be MUCH LESS LIKELY to use the IDK Button once they do end up on the Lists (also they are less likely to experience an sudden "unexpected" surge of Invites and are therefore less like to feel "overwhelmed"

I admit that we haven't finalized these policies (although they have been obvious to any of the Senior Lions or any Lion who just thinks about it for a second) and, most importantly, we haven't written a set of "Welcome to the Lions" documents to get new members up to speed -- which is mostly my fault -- I hope to have these by year end, but for now, a simple probationary period makes the most sense.

Again, the IDK problem is overblown ---

TECHNICALLY IF YOU RECIEVE AN IDK FROM ANY LION WHO WAS ON ANY OF OUR DOWNLOAD LISTS, THEY ACTIVELY INVITED YOU TO SEND THEM AN INVITE, SO THEIR USE OF THE IDK BUTTON IS "NOT IN GOOD FAITH" AND LINKEDIN MANAGMENT SHOULD KNOW THAT IMMEDIATELY ABOUT THEM.

SO, IF YOU EVER RECIEVE A IDK, YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN IMMEDIATELY TO LINKEDIN MANAGEMENT BECAUSE "THEY INVITED YOU TO SEND THEM AN INVITE" AND THEN "THEY USED THE IDK BUTTON ANYWAY" -- WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE WHICH WE CAN SUBMIT TO LINKEDIN IN YOUR DEFENSE -- PLUS ANYONE USING THE IDK BUTTON IS USING IT ON OTHERS WHO ARE ALSO SENDING A SIMILAR COMPLAINT TO LINKEDIN ABOUT THEM.

So, LinkedIn needs to know that an IDK from any of these people is "suspect at best" and should NOT lead to any suspension since we can document that an IDK from any of these individuals was "not issued in good faith" -- and they will be recieving more than one complain about that person's use of the IDK button.

Remember, there is safety in numbers, if you get an IDK, immediately complain to LinkedIN Management because "you are in the right", "they are in the wrong", and LinkedIn can't fight our evidence.

Basically, it is MEANINGLESS to RECIEVE an IDK from a REGISTERED LION who "Welcomes all Invites" yet uses the "IDK Button" ...

LinkedIn Management already KNOWS this and that is why NO LION has "REMAINED' suspended -- because they know there is no case against a Lion because we only send invites to those who have Opted-In. In a court of Law, LinkedIn Management would lose.

We just need them to stop "harassing" Lions individually. And they will stop as soon as be begin complaining in any significant numbers.



Post edited by: admin, at: 2007/10/21 14:08

Post edited by: admin, at: 2007/10/21 14:29