LinkedIn’s Shifting Algorithm: Niluka Kavanagh Questions Engagement Metrics

In a recent LinkedIn post, Niluka Kavanagh delves into the complexities and potential frustrations of the platform’s evolving algorithm, particularly questioning the traditional understanding of engagement as a primary driver of content distribution. Kavanagh highlights a perceived disconnect between high engagement rates and content visibility on LinkedIn, contrasting it with other social media platforms.

Kavanagh begins by outlining the generally accepted engagement benchmarks on most social media sites, stating:

“1–3% engagement = OK
5% engagement = good
8–10% engagement = very good
10%+ engagement = exceptional (and rewarded by the algorithm)”

This, Kavanagh explains, is based on the logical premise that platforms reward content that resonates with users by showing it to a wider audience. However, the post suggests that LinkedIn, especially since a recent algorithm change described as the “360 brew,” appears to operate differently.

The LinkedIn Algorithm Conundrum

Niluka Kavanagh shares an observation made with a friend, where despite strong engagement on their posts, distribution seemed to stall. This experience led to confusion and a common sentiment among creators:

“Why isn’t this being pushed more?”
“On any other platform, this would be a huge positive signal.”
“This is why I don’t post as much on LinkedIn…”

Kavanagh argues that this situation can lead to smart individuals feeling like they are underperforming on the platform, when in reality, they might just be navigating a game with less transparent rules. The core question posed by Kavanagh is, if engagement isn’t the sole or primary signal, then what is LinkedIn’s algorithm prioritizing?

Exploring Alternative Signals

The post speculates on other potential metrics that might influence content visibility on LinkedIn. Kavanagh asks:

“Time spent on post?
Who engages (titles, seniority)?
Saves/shares…?”

These questions underscore the lack of clarity that many creators feel regarding LinkedIn’s current algorithmic priorities. Kavanagh suggests that this ambiguity can be a source of frustration, making it difficult for users to optimize their content strategy effectively.

Advice for Creators Amidst Uncertainty

Despite the algorithmic uncertainties, Niluka Kavanagh encourages creators to persist in sharing valuable content. The rationale provided is that consistent posting, regardless of immediate algorithmic reward, serves crucial long-term benefits. Kavanagh writes:

“Keep posting because you have something useful to say. It builds your brand – a bit like a real estate asset. 🏡 It builds your credibility. And it’s fun (at least most of the time).”

This perspective frames content creation on LinkedIn as an investment in personal branding and professional credibility, akin to building a tangible asset. Even if the immediate reach is unpredictable due to algorithm shifts, the underlying value of shared expertise and brand building remains. Kavanagh concludes the post with a plea for greater transparency from LinkedIn, expressing a desire for creators to understand what the platform is truly rewarding, while reaffirming a commitment to continue creating and sharing insights.