2026-01-11 21:28:33

Recently ran a quick social media test with my followers—posted two plain text updates, no visuals attached. One was crypto-focused, the other only tangentially related to the space. Interesting findings: the crypto post pulled better engagement and reactions overall. But here's the kicker—the non-crypto post actually reached more people, even though the sentiment wasn't particularly strong on it. Makes you think about algorithmic reach vs genuine engagement. Sometimes the algorithm amplifies what sparks conversation, not always what resonates deepest. Worth monitoring how this plays out with larger samples.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

8 Likes

Reward
8
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BearMarketHustler

· 4h ago

Damn, that's why I always post crypto content... I really can't understand the algorithm --- High reach but no interaction, isn't that just useless? Engagement is the real gold and silver --- Pure text posts can be tested for differences, but what about my carefully crafted images... Am I just wasting my effort? --- The algorithm favors topic popularity, not value, and that's awkward --- I also want to know how large a sample size is enough—just a dozen likes or a hundred and eighty? --- So everything is just virtual; the key is to keep testing and let the data speak --- Non-crypto content actually has higher reach? Something feels off --- engagement > reach, I agree with this conclusion; dedicated followers are just leeks

View OriginalReply0

GovernancePretender

· 4h ago

Algorithms are really like mysticism; your data is interesting.

View OriginalReply0

ThatsNotARugPull

· 4h ago

Algorithms are really mysterious; high engagement doesn't necessarily mean broad reach. Having a large reach doesn't guarantee victory; it still depends on conversions. Crypto topics do attract traffic, but who are the real buyers? This sample size is too small; running the experiment again would be more convincing. Engagement vs reach, this is the eternal dilemma for Web3 people.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainGriller

· 4h ago

Algorithms are just black boxes; no one really understands them. Crypto topics indeed come with inherent traffic-boosting genes. If the data volume is small, don't jump to conclusions. I think we need to run more samples. The difference between engagement and reach is quite interesting, indicating that the quality and quantity of followers are not necessarily proportional. Posts unrelated to the main topic actually have a broader reach? It seems the algorithm is breaking the echo chamber. That's why some people can post shitcoin ads every day and still earn tens of thousands a month. True resonance is not the same as reach; in the Web3 space, it's the easiest trap to fall into. Keep following up, brother. Small samples are easily affected by noise.

View OriginalReply0

SatsStacking

· 4h ago

Algorithms are just a mystery; having a high reach doesn't necessarily mean it's useful. --- Crypto content inherently has viral potential. --- To put it simply, continuous testing is necessary; small samples don't tell you much. --- Yeah, that's why we need to look at engagement, not just reach. --- I feel the same way—crypto topics go viral immediately, while others fall flat. --- You need to monitor more data before drawing conclusions; otherwise, you might be fooled by false impressions.

View OriginalReply0

OffchainWinner

· 4h ago

Algorithms are really mysterious; reach may be high but no one cares... On the other hand, in crypto, even though the fan base is small, everyone is engaging. Now that's real engagement.

View OriginalReply0