The ratio does matter. The person above used Elon Musk. The second most followed account on twitter, so it's not a great example, but does stick to the range I expect. I doubt his ratio would get below .05% often.

More (active) followers > more views > higher chance of likes

Twitter uses likes (& replies, rewteets, etc) as a signal to give it more visibility in your follower's feed. More visibility, means more likes. It's a feedback loop.

It makes sense when you consider there's more tweets being produced than time to consume them.

> but if you're in the middle with 480k it's very important and shows that you're out of touch if you only get 1%?

I've noticed the ratio rarely goes above 1% for any account. Someone popular, regardless of follower count, will consistently have between .05% and 1% like-to-views ratio. I've seen viral tweets get above above 1%, but not more than 2%.

Another wrinkle is that followers will turn on notifications for popular accounts, which shortcuts the algo.

If it DOES go below 0.05% frequently, it means they aren't regularly producing engaging tweets. It's more more noteworthy for a 480K follower account because they have so many chances to get views if only they had something worth viewing.

I don't know if you actually use Twitter. The feed isn't meant to be like an RSS feed. You are meant to see what is happening in the moment. It's fine if Cory treats it as an RSS feed, but most of his 480k followers aren't seeing his stuff. The few that do see it, don't think it's worth engaging with it, so it dies there.

Musk's ratio on that tweet is within the ranges I've noticed, but there are many other signals to pay attention to on his tweets that are missing from Cory's.

This ratio is stronger on private accounts, since views aren't diluted with non-followers. I see one with 773k followers frequently get a ratio above 1%.

> If only 1% of users at any level are really engaging with the platform then its fair to say the platform has a problem.

I think this is just the nature of the beast. I hardly ever like a tweet. I suspect the mechanics of the algo are involved. Like it might dampen popularity, or not promote, a tweet if the ratio goes above 1%.

Ratio between 0.05% - 1% shows good engagement. I rarely see it above 1%. Those are 'viral' tweets. I've never seen 2% or more.

Ratio regularly dropping below 0.05% without lots of replies/retweets is bad. A low ratio could mean high views from bots (e.g. Musk) or other non-follower sources, so replies/retweets help to indicate there is healthy engagement. Cory doesn't have that.

> if you're in the middle with 480k it's very important and shows that you're out of touch if you only get 1%?

The 480k is his _potential_ reach.

You aren't entitled to reaching all 480k of your followers. They follow other people. Their feed has limited space.

Similar to how Youtubers tell people to subscribe AND enable notifications. Doing so shortcuts the algo. You can do the same on Twitter. If the small % of followers that see your tweets don't engage, the feedback loop of getting to more of your followers never kicks off.

This is obvious with well-liked accounts. More obvious when these types of accounts are private because the like/view ratio is a higher signal (ie no fly-by views).

> If only 1% of users at any level are really engaging with the platform then its fair to say the platform has a problem.

Not a problem. It's the nature of the beast. Only a small % engage. The likes create a feedback loop that gets more views, but rarely breaks above 1% likes/views ratio. You see the same limits to conversion rates in other areas (e.g. advertising or eCommerce sales).