u/Smart_Head7672

Every other post here is "post consistently," "engage with others," "use a hook." Fine, sure. But nobody talks about the stuff that quietly kills your account. From writing LinkedIn for a living, here's what I'd actually tell people to stop doing:

1. Don't open with a fake "hook." "I was rejected 47 times before…" when you weren't. People can smell the manufactured drama, and it burns trust on line one.

2. Don't post and ghost. If you drop a post and disappear for 3 hours, the early comments die with no reply and the post flatlines. The first hour is when you should be most present, not least.

3. Don't chase virality in the wrong crowd. A post that blows up with other creators and students does nothing if none of them are your buyers. Big numbers, zero outcome.

4. Don't use 10 hashtags. It's not 2019. They do close to nothing now and mostly make the post look like an ad.

5. Don't write for LinkedIn. Write for one person. "Attention all founders 👇" reaches no one. A post that talks to a single specific person is the one that actually lands.

None of this is the fun advice, but it's the stuff I see sink accounts every week. what would you add to the "don't" list?

I've spent a couple years ghostwriting LinkedIn for founders in unsexy niches, manufacturing software, lean/CI, industrial SaaS. Most creators avoid this stuff. It's actually the easiest place to stand out, because so few people write well for it.

A few things that have worked, if useful to anyone here in technical/B2B:

• Write in the actual language of the industry. Gemba, Kaizen, OEE, downtime, if you sound like a marketer who's never seen a factory, technical founders tune out instantly. This is most of the battle.
• Ignore follower count, look at who's in the audience. LinkedIn shows you the companies your engaged followers work at. When I found the right buyers were already there, I started writing for them specifically instead of chasing broad reach.
• Consistency beats virality. Posting solid stuff weekly did more than any single post that popped off.

That approach has pulled real numbers (one page hit 1.8M+ impressions last quarter, reaching a mostly Fortune 500 manufacturing audience), but honestly the principles matter more than the metrics.

Happy to answer questions on writing for technical niches, LinkedIn growth, or ghostwriting if anyone's working in this space.

Manufacturing software page, 56 posts over 90 days. Going in, the assumption was the standard one: teach at the top of funnel, sell at the bottom, don't mix.

The numbers don't support it.

Median CTR across all 56 posts: 2.58%. The two biggest posts, 71,836 and 36,799 impressions, ran 5.07% and 5.51%. Roughly double the median, on the two posts that also reached the most people. Reach and click usually trade off. Here they didn't.

Neither of those was a framework explainer. Both took a position and defended it. The pure educational output, definitions, cheatsheets, the "8 wastes of X" genre reached respectably and clicked like wallpaper.

My working theory: educational content gets saved, and a save is not a click. If someone already agrees with your framework, they have no reason to leave the feed. If you've just contradicted something they believed, they go find out who you are.

Caveat I'll state plainly: n=2 on the outliers. Two posts is an anecdote with a spreadsheet attached. But the direction holds across the middle of the distribution too, and it's enough that I've stopped defaulting to "educate at TOFU" as a rule.

The awkward part is that most B2B calendars are heavily weighted to the educational side, because it's safer to produce and nobody argues with a definition.

B2B software page. 90-day window, 56 posts, 490K impressions, 2,707 new followers.

Pull the post-level export and the Follows column is empty on all 56 rows. Not zero, blank. The aggregate dashboard confirms the follows happened. The post-level file has nothing to say about where any of them came from.

So the growth is real and the attribution is missing, which is worse than it sounds. You can't repeat what you can't identify.

Two other things in the same view:

651 of the 2,707 were Premium auto-invites. That's 24% of growth from clicking invite buttons, not from content. Strip it out and organic-attributable growth is ~2,056 — and even that could be search, profile visits, or the founder's personal profile rather than the page.

New followers are down 48.3% against the prior period. Impressions held roughly flat over the same stretch. Reach stable, follow-conversion halving, no post-level data to diagnose it with. Auto-invites also fell 36.5%, so part of the drop is just someone sending fewer invites, but not half.

Has anyone found a working way to attribute page follows to specific posts? UTM'd link in the comments doesn't solve it, because the follow happens on the page, not through the link.