Does LinkedIn Limit the Number of Connections You Can Have?

Excellent article!

To learn more on why it DOES make sense to have many quality connections, just e-mail me and ask from the first-hand experience.

For different people, its different. It may not be for you, but it won’t hurt you to ask me ‘why’

BTW, did you read: http://tinyurl.com/WhyMany

Have a good weekend,

- Steven Burda
http://www.linkedin.com/in/burda
http://tinyurl.com/LinkedinBio

Hi Steven,

Thanks as always for your support. I am also in the camp that it makes sense to have lots of quality connections for my objective, but I also respect that a lot of people don’t want to go that route, and this may be the best route for their objective.

That being said, if you are wondering what people use their connections for, please feel free to ask me or contact Steven for a second opinion!

- Neal

Another good blog, posted by Dan Galbraith, is here:

http://tinyurl.com/BlogOnLimit

Excellent blog post Steven! Thanks for sharing it with all of us!

I agree that this kind of regulation is aimed at people who abuse the system. Fact is that the people who are into abusing, will find ways around the restrictions and legitimate users will suffer.

I do think that limits and restrictions should be lifted. What they do is alienate the best customers and create ill will without achieving what the people originally intended to achieve – which I’m assuming is stop spam.

Human nature is human nature. Rather than punish those who best serve the network, they should be rewarded instead

Hi Rick,

Yes, whenever you enact regulations those who abuse the system will always find a workaround…and the real evangelizers of LinkedIn that are the power users will suffer…

And amen to your second comment!

- Neal

I recently interviewed author and Ecademy co-founder Thomas Power (here is the link to the broadcast from July 22nd – http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Jon-Hansen/2009/07/22/Know-Me-Like-Me-Follow-Me-Your-Business-and-Social-Media) whose social network has been in existence since 1998.

The discussion was both interesting and in many instances thought provoking as we touched on the age demographics for Facebook, LinkedIn etc., the impact that the upcoming generation of users will have relative to tipping the scales for one platform over the other and of course the growing fragmentation of networks.

Of these, Power believed that the arbitrary setting of limits in terms of invites and contacts by LinkedIn and Facebook (both of which he is on), is a tactical error, and they they will likely remove limits in the near future.

That said my show, which on recent broadcasts has reached over 1 million people as well as the other venues that operate under the PI Social Media Network (re Blogs and a soon to be launched TV Channel) means that is is within the realm of possibility that my paltry 3,600 contacts on LinkedIn (which as grown 250% since the PI Window Show launched)could very easily hit the 30K limit sometime in 2010 (if not sooner).

The question I have is simply this . . . why set limits in the first place?

Jon

Jon,

Thanks so much for your excellent comment, and I couldn’t agree with you more. In fact, we should really look at why the limits are set in the first place. Could it be that power users could potentially be competing with LinkedIn and Facebook’s own plans to monetize their own services? If not, why don’t these sites come out with an explanation? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller? Ferris Beuller?

- Neal

I am relatively new to the social networking world, and fine the navigation and exploration somewhat daunting. Then I run into someone I am interested in connecting with, only to find that their account has been frozen and under the control of Big Brother. What is the point to networking if someone in the seat of power has imposed some arbitrary restriction when no violation has been committed.

As an author of a business book on communication, I find this discussion rather contrary. Dialog and interaction is the key to building healthy productive relations and if we are going to be held to such restriction we only slow the process of global unity.

When you tell me I can’t boy oh boy I will find a way!

In Spirit

Jed A. Reay

Jed,

I could not agree with you more! The whole concept is contrary to what social networking is all about, as you suggest. Thank you for your comment and look forward to fighting the battle side by side with you!

- Neal

Money is definitely the reason for the limit. If there are a dozen people that can connect to more than 50% of the LinkedIn (or FaceBook) universe, then there is less incentive for others to pay for premium services that will extend their own reach. They just have to connect to the power users.

That said, there are many more people who don't subscribe to open networking, so LinkedIn doesn't really have to worry about it. If they fixed a few other things, like adding tiered contacts, then people would not worry too much about the limitations.

-ASB: http://xeesm.com/AndrewBaker
Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership

Hi
LINKEDIN does a great job in providing outlets and networking opportunities for the individual web user. Those who utilize the site for their professionalism practice or actually handle business cases in sending messages and recommendations to encourage networking have not been limited from what I am seeing. Connections made by the business owners and associates using Linkedin have ackomplished what it was that they should be intended to use the net for.

Major usage for those who have Linkedin would be overestimating the force behind Linkedin, and for those who can manipulate the workings of this application then they would be underestimating. From what you can learn from those individuals, you would be considered an associate business partner. THeir professional procedures and showing as well as the post approaches will direct those who need the attention in certain area's.

Taking my personal situation for example, I have many profiles on a number of services and I rate Linkedin as a positive one whereby I can get tons of answers figured out and have came across non challenges associated with web networking as far as connections are concerned

The limit on invitations and on connections just doesn't make any sense for networkers. If we go to a live networking event and only hang out with the people we know, then the gathering wasn't really a networking event. We go to meet new people, often in a direct manner rather than through someone else. The same applies here–why limit the number of people I can introduce myself to?

For sales people or anyone with a large customer data base, the limit is meaningless (for example, I have over 5,000 contacts in my Outlook address book, but can't invite all of them. Who do I leave out?) If I change companies, it is very conceivable that my contacts will change with my job function. So I won't be able to invite all of those new folks.

Let me throw in a sales anecdote here. My longest sell cycle was 4 years. That was very unusual, but it happened. I network with people because we all help each other sometime. You help me today, while it might be a year before I can do something for you. The pay-it-forward philosophy is also important, since it all comes full circle.

The only reasoning that works here is that unlimited invitations and connections can't be monetized. Several commenters have discussed that. LinkedIn's usage numbers, and the time spent in the program, don't come anywhere near Facebook or any other application, and the developers would like to change that, I'm sure. So I'd like to remind LinkedIn's developers that the more activity I've got going on, the longer I'll be working in the program each day. The other day I was here for 8 hours. If that's what you'd like to see much more often, then please remove the limitations.

Angie, thank you for your passionate and detailed comment, spoken very eloquently and extremely convincing. I couldn't agree any more with you!