u/samhonestgrowth

I got tired of generic LinkedIn advice that never comes with properly cited data, so we pulled 130,000 posts from 2,500 profiles (July 2025 to July 2026) and tested the most repeated rules. Every comparison is the same person against their own posts, because comparing different people measures the people, not the tactic. The study we did put to bed, most of commonly cited "tactics"...

Only three things survived:

1. Put an image on it. +33% engagement vs the same person's text posts. A screenshot or a phone photo is enough. Simple, but It's the biggest lever we found.
2. Start with "I", "my" or "we" and say what happened. +20%, and it held in every format. "I rewrote my profile last month and inbound doubled" beats "You need to stop treating your profile like a CV". Same message. One sounds like a person.
3. Post 3-4 times a week and judge the week, not the post. Each post earns less, the week earns roughly triple. Most people quit right when it's working because they're watching the per-post number.

Things you shouldn't be doing:

• Hashtags. One or two do nothing at all. Three or more costs about 7%. I'd been adding them for years. (Why do they hurt? The data shows that they do, not why. My guess is they make a post read like broadcast content instead of a person talking.)
• Ending with a question. The typical question-ending post gains zero extra comments and loses about 10% of reactions. We tested 5,494 of them hoping this one would survive. It didn't.
• Opening with a question. Worst opener we measured, -15%.
• "Unpopular opinion:" openers. Coin flip.
• Chasing posting times. Same person, weekend vs weekday: about 2% difference. The scheduling blogs each publish a different "best time" anyway, which tells you everything.
• Counting characters. No ideal length exists in the data.
• Switching formats to feed the algorithm. Slightly worse than sticking with what works.
• Polls. Down 58%. Smaller sample, but nothing in the data recommends them.
• Reality check while you're here: the median B2B post gets 34 reactions and 3-4 comments. At 5-10k followers, 27 is normal. Ten comments is a great post. Benchmark against people your size, not influencers.

Things we could NOT test, so you don't have to ask: link-in-first-comment (comment threads aren't in the data), impressions (nobody outside LinkedIn can see those), best hour of day. Anyone giving you exact numbers on those is guessing.

And yes, I've changed how I post since running this. Images on everything, hashtags gone, and I stopped bolting an engagement question onto the end of every post. Which is why there isn't one at the end of this one. Apparently it wouldn't help.

If you want the full study with the charts and methodology, say so below and I'll drop the link in a comment.

Got tired of advice that never comes with data, so at Flypost we tested the 11 most repeated LinkedIn rules on 130,000 real posts from 2,500 people. Short version: almost everything you've been told to do does nothing, and the two things that work are embarrassingly simple.

What actually works:

1. Put an image on it. +33% reactions vs the same person's text-only posts. Doesn't need design skills. A screenshot, a photo, a plain chart.
2. Start with "I", "my" or "we" and describe something that happened. +20%, works in every format. "I rewrote my profile last month and inbound doubled" beats "You need to stop treating your profile like a CV." Same message. One sounds like a person.
3. Post more often. Four posts a week roughly triples your weekly engagement compared to one, even though each post gets fewer reactions. Everyone watches per-post numbers and quits right when it's working.

What you can stop doing today:

• Hashtags. 1-2 do literally nothing. 3 or more costs you about 7%.
• Ending with a question. The typical question-ending post gets ZERO extra comments and about 10% fewer reactions. Tested on 5,494 posts, this one hurt to confirm.
• Opening with a question. Worst opener we measured, -15%.
• "Unpopular opinion:" hooks. Coin flip, no effect.
• Chasing the best time to post. Same person, weekend vs weekday: about 2% difference. Noise. (The guides publishing "best times" all name different ones, which tells you everything.)
• Hitting 1,300 characters or any other magic length. No effect for text posts.
• Rotating formats to "keep the algorithm interested". Slightly worse than repeating what works.
• Polls. Down about 58%. Worst thing we measured.

Reality check while you're here: the median B2B post gets 34 reactions and 3-4 comments. At 5-10k followers, 27 reactions is normal. If a post of yours gets 10 comments, that's genuinely good.

We tested all of this by comparing each person against their OWN posts (not against other people), which is why several famous rules died here that other studies keep "confirming".

Things we couldn't test and won't pretend to know: link-in-first-comment, impressions, best hour of day. Ask me anything about the rest.

If you'd like to see the full study with methodology, please let me know and I'll link it in the comments.

Every LinkedIn guide says the same stuff: post Tuesday morning, use 3-5 hashtags, end with a question etc.. I wanted to know what actually works, so we tested the 11 most repeated rules on 130,000 real posts from 2,500 creators.

What actually works:

1. Put an image on every post. +33% reactions. Biggest and most reliable lift we found. A screenshot or a photo of the thing you're talking about is enough.
2. Start with "I", "my" or "we". +20%. Write about something that happened to you, like a person, not a brand. This beat every clever hook formula we tested.
3. Post more often. Four posts a week gets you about triple the weekly engagement of one post a week, even though each post earns less. Judge your week, not each post.
4. Just put the link in if you need the click. Costs about 12%, not the "60%" people quote. Almost half of creators did better WITH links.

What you can stop doing (none of this moved the needle):

• Hashtags. One or two do nothing, three or more actually costs you reach.
• Ending with a question "for engagement". Typical gain: zero extra comments.
• Opening with a question. Worst opener we measured, -15%.
• Hunting the best time to post. Fun fact: the big scheduling blogs each name a completely different "best time". That's how you know it's noise.
• Hitting an ideal length. No effect for text posts.
• Switching formats to please the algorithm. Slightly worse than repeating what works.
• Polls. Worst format in the entire dataset by a mile.

One line on method because it's the difference: we compared each creator against their OWN posts, not against other people. Most studies skip this, which is why they keep "finding" things that aren't there.

I published the whole thing with charts, free, no signup. Not going to spam a link here, but if you want it just say so in the comments and I'll share it.

Happy to answer anything. If you spot a flaw, tell me and I'll test it.

(Context: I run Flypost, a LinkedIn content tool. This research is what the product is built on.)

Built a B2B influencer marketing tool. Niche is LinkedIn/YouTube creator/influencer discovery and creator fit/ audience ICP analysis for tech and SaaS. Solo founder, taught myself to code with AI tools, 10-15 hours a week.

Here's my numbers so far

6 lifetime paying customers (2 months average retention)

5 churned

$99 MRR (1 customer)

38% demo-to-paid conversion

~$200/mo burn

Before you say 'talk to users', I have spoken to at least 30 people (agencies, in house, founders etc.) All running influencer marketing for SaaS brands. Its been extremely difficult to get them to switch from existing tool stacks.

The weird part is the top of funnel actually works. People find me, they take demos, they buy. But the job they need the tool for is campaign-based. They come in, find their creators, run the campaign, and cancel. Some people use the tool extensively, others bought it and barely touched it. They only need the tool for a few weeks every quarter, so a monthly subscription doesn't make sense for them.

I've got a genuinely differentiated dataset (40k pre vetted B2B LinkedIn and YouTube creators with audience demographics) and an MCP server that lets AI agents query it directly, which has been my best inbound magnet.

My closest competitor has a team of 20, raised funding has a full end to end platform and is doing around $2M ARR after 5 years. I'm one person with 10/15 hours a week trying to compete with that.

Im considering pivoting from a full SaaS to an API/data layer with usage-based pricing. Most of the infra is already built. But honestly, I'm running out of motivation. 6 months of grinding, learning to code, constant iteration, and I'm staring at $99 MRR.

For those who've been in a similar spot: did you push through or walk away? How did you know which was the right call?