4 ms·
a 2.37% click through rate is far from ideal. Twitter analytics specifically does not mention clicks on links for this very reason. instead they simply track al
by xpose2000 4y ago
a 2.37% click through rate is far from ideal. Twitter analytics specifically does not mention clicks on links for this very reason. instead they simply track all clicks... links, profile, hashtags, etc.
- paulpauper 4y agoThat is what you would expect. An impression is merely having the tweet show up on your feed , even if you only see it briefly. Whether or not you read or click, etc is secondary.
- chrisco255 4y agoI think that is a fantastic click through rate for something that passively shows on a feed. That's probably about as high as you can realistically get to be honest. Most posts get sub fractions of 1% click through rate.
- whimsicalism 4y agoyou are wrong, sub 1% is closer to what you would get for an advertisement.
- chrisco255 4y agoFor any random feed link that was not requested, just passively shows up to everyone that happens to follow Elon, it is a fantastic click through rate. Please show some data on passive feed click through rates on social media sites.
- lolinder 4y agoGiven that Twitter just changed the algorithm to artificially inflate Musk's tweets, I think a tweet from him could well be considered a paid advertisement at this point. A very, very expensive paid ad.
- 20after4 4y ago44 billion dollars expensive?
- xena 4y agoFor what it's worth I would _kill_ for a 2.37% click through rate on my blogposts when they are linked on social media. Turns out most people on siloes like Twitter want to stay in the silo instead of actually reading things on people's own websites.
- ksec 4y agoActually very surprising to me. I am well aware of the click rate of advertising. But for something like this, I would expect closer to 10%. Turns out most people just don’t read the content. And headline dictate how our society are being informed.