Most of its reach comes from replying under other people's posts; original posts are fewer.
Followers 7,421Diagnosed on 2026-11-12Followers 11-12 08:07Tweets 11-12 09:20
AScore 72
Reach check
Against the account's own previous week; not part of the score
Views dropped sharplyMedian views per post over the last 7 days are 52% below the 7 days before. It may be a change in topics or timing, or reduced distribution — public data can't tell which.
Scores by dimension
Out of 100 · 50 = the median of similar-size accounts
View efficiency
92
Views per post ≈ 1215.5% of followers · ahead of 92% of similar-size accounts
Growth momentum
83
Followers +7.98% in 7 days · ahead of 83% of similar-size accounts
Engagement quality
10
2.3 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 10% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence
83
215 posts in the last 14 days, on 10 of them
Content consistency
87
The top post took 14% of 14-day views (83 posts)
Findings
Strengths
View efficiencyViews per post ≈ 1215.5% of followers · ahead of 92% of similar-size accounts
Content consistencyThe top post took 14% of 14-day views (83 posts)
To improve
Engagement quality2.3 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 10% of similar-size accounts
Suggestions
Plenty of views, little interactionWhat to doEnd posts with a clear question and answer the first few replies.How to checkIn two weeks, see whether likes and replies per 1,000 views have gone up.
The reach check compares the medians of the last two weeks; it shows a change in views, not its cause. The diagnosis uses only public data collected by this site: the account's own original posts (no retweets or replies), counted once a tweet is past 24h. View efficiency, growth and engagement are scored by rank among similar-size accounts (⅓–3× the followers); cadence and consistency by the account's own posting. A dimension without enough data is not scored and stays out of the total. For reference only — it says nothing about the account's standing on X.
