It is insane how much better engagement is on Mastodon than on Twitter. On here, I've gained over 100 followers from a single post a few times already. On Twitter, my most popular tweet ever got 2 million impressions. And the analytics claim that earned me...... a whopping 2 new followers.
On Twitter, an algorithm shows you content that it thinks it can convince you is a good representation of what you want. There, a "follow" is: "I like this so much I want to see everything this person ever posts from now on"
On Mastodon, there is no algorithm. A follow is the only way to potentially see similar content in the future.
These metrics can't be easily compared. I'd say replies can be compared, though.
@lowqualityfacts how many followers did you already have at that point? If you had 1,999,998 followers and got 2 million reactions and 2 new followers, then I guess that's pretty good. Right?
@lowqualityfacts
<rant>
I'm sure there are commercial reasons, but it's irritating when anyone worries about numbers of followers, analytics, etc. Social media is a place to interact & discuss; to vent & rant as an antidote to insanity. Why does it have to be exploited for commerce? I will admit to appreciating discovery of art/music here, and I love that it keeps me abreast of current events, but Twitter was a constant barrage of thinly disguised commercialism that ruined that platform for me
@lowqualityfacts That’s because ‘engagement’ is not the same as ‘reading what you created’.
More creators/celebrities/public figures need to realize that 1000 interested people paying attention is worth more than 10 million viewing and then casually passing it by. And that ‘reach’, ‘exposure’, etc doesn’t always work in your favor.
Google Ads get a lot of views and have great reach…and I ignore every one I see…
[not a low quality fact]
@lowqualityfacts I’m certainly not defending Twitter because that place sucks, but there were plenty of people over there I wanted to follow I just couldn’t follow because I was already at 5000 or something stupid.
@lowqualityfacts Just seeing this now for the boost. But yeah, Twitter's impressions are not really related to follow counts. My most viral tweets never netted me followers; what did net me followers was a specific kind of RTing and quote-tweeting, like "Alon is looking for a job, hire him [sic - it was years before I came out enby]" or "this report in the NYT is sourced to what Alon blogged first" or such, from people with followers with the same specific interest as what I write about.
@lowqualityfacts I've found that one post I made was shared over 50 times in one day, and still is being. Mastodon does not make one an addict to retoots or follows. If it happens, it happens. Nothing disastrous will happen if you don't have either.
@lowqualityfacts
That truly is a low quality fact. Good work, my friend.
😀 But yes, engagement is far better in the #Fediverse than what I've experienced elsewhere. At least here a follower doesn't disappear hours later because it was a bot scamming something.
@lowqualityfacts yeah it was really weird. I had an account on the post-Elon-Twitter. First post: Got a decent amount of engagement, like thousands of views and a few likes. I got like a follower or two. Then the rest of the posts that I made didn't even crack 100. They were of the same type of posts too. With hashtags and everything. I never really had a twitter, never got into it and that's most of the reason why. Felt like there was nothing to really engage with.
@lowqualityfacts engagement over there is certainly nearly 0. I know Mastodon doesn't give any data per toot, but my engagements are usually 7 views and maybe 1 like by the author I tagged on Twitter. My morning mantra posts here, however, regularly bring in dozens of interactions
Add comment