u/Dhaniya_piyush_07

There's this thing that happens when a post flops.

You check it an hour after posting. 4 likes. 1 comment from your cousin.

Embarrassing. So you delete it and pretend it never happened.

I did this for months.

What I didn't know, and genuinely wish someone had told me earlier, is that deleted posts kill your momentum. The algorithm doesn't forget what you removed. And those "flops" sometimes resurface weeks later with zero effort from you.

But the bigger mistake wasn't deleting posts.

It was obsessing over big creator accounts while completely ignoring everyone else.

I was spending all my engagement energy commenting on posts from people with 50k-100k followers. Thoughtful comments. Real effort. And they'd get buried under 200 other replies within minutes.

Nobody saw them. Including the creator.

One day I just randomly commented on a post from someone with maybe 3,000 followers. Not strategic. I just had something real to say.

That comment brought more profile visits than my own posts did that week.

So I shifted the whole approach.

I started finding people in my niche under 5k followers and engaging with their content genuinely. Their audiences are small but actually paying attention. Comments don't get buried. Conversations actually start.

And I stopped deleting anything. Flops stay up now. I go back and reply to late comments. Sometimes they get a second life.

The boring version of this is: 7-10 real comments a day on smaller accounts in your niche. No tricks. No pods. Just consistency.

Growth got more predictable after I made the least glamorous change possible.

Has anyone else noticed that smaller creator engagement hits different than chasing the big names?

​

I used to send 20-30 connection requests a day.

"Would love to connect!"

"Great profile!"

"Let's collaborate sometime!"

Copy. Paste. Send. Repeat.

Zero replies.

I genuinely thought LinkedIn was broken. Or that people were just rude. Or that I wasn't "big enough" yet for anyone to respond.

Then one afternoon I went back and read my own DMs.

I wanted to crawl under my desk.

Every single message was about me. What I wanted. What I was working on. What I was looking for.

Not one word about the person I was messaging.

So I tried something different. Before sending anything, I spent 60 seconds on their profile. One recent post. One career detail. One thing that was actually interesting.

Then I wrote 2-3 sentences around that one thing.

"Your post about [X] was the first honest take I've seen on that topic. We ran into the same wall at [Y stage]. How did you end up handling the [specific part]?"

That's it. No pitch. No portfolio link. No "quick call?"

The difference was uncomfortable to admit.

Reply rates went from basically zero to somewhere around 30-40% within two weeks.

The scary part is how simple it was.

People just want to know you actually looked at them. That you're a human, not a copy-paste machine.

15 DMs a day done properly beats 100 generic ones every single time.

Anyone else had to unlearn the spray-and-pray approach before LinkedIn actually started working?

I spent months trying to crack LinkedIn content.

Posting consistently. Experimenting with formats. Watching what performed well and trying to replicate it.

The engagement numbers looked okay. But conversations with actual buyers? Almost none.

For a while I blamed the algorithm. Then I blamed my niche. Then I blamed the fact that I "wasn't big enough yet."

Eventually I went back through everything I'd posted over 6 months and looked at it as if I were a potential client landing on my profile cold.

It looked like an Instagram account that had wandered into the wrong platform.

Short punchy lines stacked on top of each other. Hype-style hooks. Reels trying to catch attention in the first half second. The kind of content that performs well when someone's half-asleep scrolling at midnight.

But the people I actually wanted to reach, busy decision-makers, directors, founders, they're not on LinkedIn for entertainment. They're there with some level of intent. When they land on a profile they're evaluating whether this person understands their world.

My content wasn't showing them that I did.

So I changed almost everything about how I wrote.

Posts became longer and more specific. Real situations with real context. What actually happened, what the decision was, what the result looked like. No vague "here are my 5 tips" carousels. Actual experience written plainly.

The hook stopped trying to be clever and started naming a real pain: "Last month a client came to us because they'd lost 40% of their pipeline and couldn't figure out where the leak was."

That kind of opener. Substance from line one.

Comments per post went down slightly. But the quality of who was commenting completely changed. Buyers started showing up. Conversations started going somewhere.

Turned out the content that grows a follower count and the content that attracts clients are sometimes two very different things.

Anyone else found that dialling back the "performance" side of content actually brought in better conversations?

**Body:**

I spent months trying to crack LinkedIn content.

Posting consistently. Experimenting with formats. Watching what performed well and trying to replicate it.

The engagement numbers looked okay. But conversations with actual buyers? Almost none.

For a while I blamed the algorithm. Then I blamed my niche. Then I blamed the fact that I "wasn't big enough yet."

Eventually I went back through everything I'd posted over 6 months and looked at it as if I were a potential client landing on my profile cold.

It looked like an Instagram account that had wandered into the wrong platform.

Short punchy lines stacked on top of each other. Hype-style hooks. Reels trying to catch attention in the first half second. The kind of content that performs well when someone's half-asleep scrolling at midnight.

But the people I actually wanted to reach, busy decision-makers, directors, founders, they're not on LinkedIn for entertainment. They're there with some level of intent. When they land on a profile they're evaluating whether this person understands their world.

My content wasn't showing them that I did.

So I changed almost everything about how I wrote.

Posts became longer and more specific. Real situations with real context. What actually happened, what the decision was, what the result looked like. No vague "here are my 5 tips" carousels. Actual experience written plainly.

The hook stopped trying to be clever and started naming a real pain: "Last month a client came to us because they'd lost 40% of their pipeline and couldn't figure out where the leak was."

That kind of opener. Substance from line one.

Comments per post went down slightly. But the quality of who was commenting completely changed. Buyers started showing up. Conversations started going somewhere.

Turned out the content that grows a follower count and the content that attracts clients are sometimes two very different things.

Anyone else found that dialling back the "performance" side of content actually brought in better conversations?

I'm not proud of this one but it might save someone else the headache.

A while back I was frustrated with how slow organic LinkedIn growth felt. Someone in a group mentioned a tool that could automate connection requests and follow-up messages. Seemed harmless. Everyone was apparently using it.

Within 3 weeks my account got flagged.

Outreach completely frozen. Profile views dropped off a cliff. Took almost two weeks of doing absolutely nothing before things started recovering.

And the brutal irony is the automated messages weren't even working. The reply rate was terrible because they were obviously templated. I was risking my account for a 2% response rate on messages nobody wanted to receive.

So I stripped everything back to zero and rebuilt manually.

Here's what actually stuck:

Hard limits every single day. 20 to 25 connection requests max. 5 to 10 DMs. And not sent in a burst, spaced out across the day, different times, no pattern. Boring and deliberate.

Before any outreach, I spend the majority of my time just engaging. Comments on posts from people in my target audience. Real comments that add something. Not "great post!" but actual perspective. This alone warms things up before I ever send a connection request.

Then the requests and messages, when they do go out, land completely differently because there's already context. They've seen my name. They recognise me.

The growth is slower than a bot would promise. But the connections actually mean something. And the account is safe.

50 solid connections a week beats 500 hollow ones that got you restricted. Every time.

Anyone else had to go through the hard lesson before realising manual done properly actually wins?

This one took me embarrassingly long to figure out.

My posts were getting comments. Real ones. Thoughtful ones. People sharing their own experiences, adding to the conversation.

But every time I looked at who was actually engaging, it was people who did exactly what I do.

Other coaches. Other consultants. Other freelancers in the same space.

I had built a very enthusiastic audience of people who would never hire me.

And the worst part is I kept doubling down on it without realising. The more I posted for that crowd, the more of them showed up. LinkedIn's algorithm just kept feeding the same loop.

The moment things shifted was when I stopped asking "what do I want to say" and started asking "what is my actual client losing sleep over right now."

That question changed everything I wrote.

I stopped posting about my process and methodology. Started writing about specific situations my ideal clients were stuck in. The exact pains. The exact moments of frustration. Written in their language, not industry language.

Then I took it further.

I started spending 20 minutes a day finding where those actual decision-makers were posting. Turned on notifications for some of them. Left real comments on their content, not cheerleading, actual perspective.

Something like: "This is exactly what we kept hitting too. The thing that finally moved the needle for us was [specific thing]. What have you tried so far?"

That kind of comment. On their turf. In their world.

Two things happened. They started recognising my name. And their audience, people just like them, started showing up on my profile.

Within a few weeks, inbound conversations started coming from people who were actually potential clients. Not a single DM sent. Just consistent presence in the right places.

The echo chamber is comfortable. It feels like momentum. But it's a trap if the people cheering you on will never pay you.

Has anyone else had to completely rebuild who they were actually writing for?

Been staying consistent on LinkedIn and honestly, it is exhausting.

Posts that take real effort get ignored. Meanwhile the same recycled format keeps winning. Emotional story, struggle, lesson, repeat.

Tried it. Worked a little. Felt hollow.

Here is what actually changed things:

Write one strong opinion instead of a list of lessons. People remember a clear take, not five bullet points.

Add one specific detail. "I posted 22 times before anyone engaged" hits different than "I stayed consistent."

Stop polishing everything. If it sounds too clean, it probably sounds like everyone else. Write how you actually talk.

Share what you are still figuring out. Confusion is more relatable than another success story.

Ask a real question at the end. Not "Agree?" but something you actually want to know the answer to.

LinkedIn has not changed as much as the content on it has. Everything looks professional now. Very little feels personal.

The fix is not a better template. It is just being a little more honest than most people are willing to be.

What is one thing you stopped doing on LinkedIn that actually helped?

I’ve been trying to understand this for a while, and honestly, both work but in different phases.

If I had to start today, I’d focus on consistency first. For at least 90 days, I’d show up daily. Even if nothing happens in the beginning, it’s normal. Things take time to build.

With cold DMs, I wouldn’t go directly into selling. I’d start by connecting, having normal conversations, and trying to understand the other person. If there’s a genuine fit, then slowly bring in what I do. Helping works much better than pushing.

Also, I’ve noticed that outreach becomes much easier when you already have some content. Even a few good posts act like proof. People check your profile before replying, so it helps build trust.

On the content side, it feels slow at first, but once it starts picking up, it can bring inbound opportunities. You build some authority, people start recognizing your name, and conversations become more natural.

So for me, it’s not really DM vs content. It’s more like

Start conversations early, but keep building content in parallel

What has worked better for you?

First thing I’d fix is my profile. Most people ignore this. I’d spend real time writing a clear headline based on what I actually want to be known for, not just a fancy title.

Then I’d build a content structure before posting anything randomly. I’d keep it simple

70% reach content (relatable, broad topics)

20% authentic content (my real thoughts, learning, experiences)

10% lead generation (soft, not pushy)

One thing I’ve noticed is that not every content format works for every profile. Some profiles grow with text + photos, some with PDFs, some with videos. Even in niches like health, detailed breakdown posts work more than trends.

So instead of copying others, I’d test everything. Text posts, carousels, videos. Then I’d double down only on what actually works for me.

For engagement, I wouldn’t just post and leave. I’d consistently engage with others’ content, around 20 meaningful interactions daily. That’s where a lot of visibility actually comes from.

That’s pretty much it. No hacks, just structured effort and constant testing.

Would this still work today or am I missing something?