Comments on: The hidden rules of LinkedIn – Disappointing http://cianblog.com/2011/07/29/the-hidden-rules-of-linkedin-disappointing/ Lucian Savluc - Blog Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:29:16 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Lucian Savluc http://cianblog.com/2011/07/29/the-hidden-rules-of-linkedin-disappointing/comment-page-1/#comment-1089 Lucian Savluc Sun, 31 Jul 2011 16:57:37 +0000 http://cianblog.com/?p=453#comment-1089 Yes, you right, this is the point; if you have a condition like that, you must make the number public. Yes, you right, this is the point; if you have a condition like that, you must make the number public.

]]> By: Cristian http://cianblog.com/2011/07/29/the-hidden-rules-of-linkedin-disappointing/comment-page-1/#comment-1088 Cristian Sun, 31 Jul 2011 04:57:01 +0000 http://cianblog.com/?p=453#comment-1088 NOTE that I say "maybe" because I am another user clicking "I agree" without reading too much :) NOTE that I say “maybe” because I am another user clicking “I agree” without reading too much :)

]]> By: Cristian http://cianblog.com/2011/07/29/the-hidden-rules-of-linkedin-disappointing/comment-page-1/#comment-1087 Cristian Sun, 31 Jul 2011 04:55:36 +0000 http://cianblog.com/?p=453#comment-1087 Maybe the rule was always there in case Pro and Advertising revenue dropped. Still, they should've presented the maximum number of invitations on the Free accounts. Looks to me that they tried to cover in one phrase two situations - when forcing a user to pay - and when limiting a user for something he/she did. Maybe the rule was always there in case Pro and Advertising revenue dropped. Still, they should’ve presented the maximum number of invitations on the Free accounts.

Looks to me that they tried to cover in one phrase two situations – when forcing a user to pay – and when limiting a user for something he/she did.

]]>