Comments on: What is a LinkedIn IDK? And Why Should I Care?

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 03:54:02 +0000

In reply to Neal Schaffer. Definitely agree with you Neal. Every restriction is always a potential outcome for LinkedIn to suspend your account or even close it altogether.

By: Neal Schaffer

Neal Schaffer — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 02:58:07 +0000

In reply to Jonathan. Hey Jonathan, thanks for chiming in! Indeed, LinkedIn is always changing their platform, and considering that this post was written 6 (!) years ago, it wouldn't surprise me if there were changes. LinkedIn has become very sophisticated with many things about their platform, and it wouldn't surprise me if they use a number of factors in a complex algorithm before they start restricting you. That being said, whether it's 5 or 50 or 100, IDKs are still something to be avoided that people need to know about, so hoping that the objective of the post is still true today.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 20:45:29 +0000

The limit of five IDKs before getting restricted has circulated on many websites including from well respected bloggers such as Stacy Zapar. But this appears to be a myth (or at least, it no longer is the case in 2014) Don’t get me wrong, getting too many IDK will get you restricted. But it takes a lot more than five for this to happen. I remember even reading one comment from a LinkedIn moderator in their forum saying that there was no such thing as being restricted after only five IDK.

I’ve joined LinkedIn last year. Like many newbies, I have been restricted. But it took me well over 50 IDK (or spam) before I was requested to plug an email address on further invitations. I don’t know exactly what is Linkedin’s criteria for getting restricted. My guess is that it could either be a ratio of IDK/Spam vs Accepted/Archived, or an absolute number (like 50 for example), or a combination of the two aforementioned.

By: Neal Schaffer

Neal Schaffer — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:29:41 +0000

In reply to Sarah Santacroce (@sarahsantacroce). You're very welcome Sarah - and thanks for sharing!

By: Sarah Santacroce (@sarahsantacroce)

Sarah Santacroce (@sarahsantacroce) — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:42:41 +0000

Wow, I had no idea about this one, Neal ! Thanks for opening my eyes ! Will share this with my network

By: Neal Schaffer

Neal Schaffer — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:18:00 +0000

In reply to Ahmed. Yes, the LinkedIn user interface changes all the time, and I think now it is impossible to check up on this status.

By: Ahmed

Ahmed — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:40:00 +0000

Where I can find IDK given to me. What you stated in your post http://windmillnetworking.com/2008/07/25/linkedin-i-dont-know-idk-responses-how-do-i-know-if-ive-received/ is not working for me. The only option available for sorting sent invitations are “Newest” and “Oldest” .

By: nealschaffer

nealschaffer — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:29:45 +0000

I agree that there is a problem in the nomenclature. I don't understand why LinkedIn just isn't more transparent and make it easy to accept, archive, block user, or report user for spam. Done!

By: pantherjad

pantherjad — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:36:42 +0000

The problem is the language of the buttons, they need the following:

"Accept"
"Do not accept"
"Unsolicited spam"

I think most people will recognize the hard language of "unsolicited spam" and if you attempt to connect with them through some thin commonalities, they would merely not accept your invite. This is far better language as I think "archive" comes with the concept of taking up space or creating clutter and no one wants to do that.

By: nealschaffer

nealschaffer — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:29:45 +0000

I agree that there is a problem in the nomenclature. I don't understand why LinkedIn just isn't more transparent and make it easy to accept, archive, block user, or report user for spam. Done!