Charles Floate 📈 engagement report
@Charles_SEO - 97K followers on X
Measured over 38 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on August 24, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 32 interactions against 97K followers, an engagement rate of 0.034%. Measured over 38 original posts, its engagement rate beats 33% of 4,085 tracked accounts of a similar size, which puts it in the middle of its size range rather than at either end. Posts are seen about 4.8K times each, and 0.671% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 4.98% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 2.2 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 53% of days. Most posts go out around 05:00 UTC, and Thursday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 38 posts sampled, 79% carry an image or video, 16% are part of a thread and 45% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 2.0K interactions, about 62x its own typical post.
Measured over 38 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on August 24, 2026. Recurring tag: #buildinpublic.
Compared with accounts its own size
Charles Floate 📈's engagement rate beats 33% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (4,085 accounts, accounts of similar size (decile 5 of 10)). A percentile is spread evenly by construction, so 50 really is the middle of that group and 90 really is its top tenth.
On engagement per impression rather than per follower it beats 34% of the same group. When those two numbers disagree, the gap is about how far its posts travel rather than how people react to them.
Where this sits in the catalog
At 0.034%, Charles Floate 📈 sits above the 25th percentile of the 39,683 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the below the median band, which runs 0.013% to 0.082%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.002% |
| 25th percentile | 0.013% |
| 50th percentile | 0.082% |
| 75th percentile | 0.442% |
| 90th percentile | 2.09% |
| 99th percentile | 149.3% |
This ruler is the whole measured catalog, not a size-matched group: it shows where the raw rate falls across every account we can measure, all of which are large. For a like-for-like comparison, read the size-band percentile above instead. See how the bands are built
Posting timing
This account posts most often around 05:00 UTC, and Thursday is its busiest day of the week. The bars below are the catalog-wide pattern, with this account's own busiest slot marked. They do not show how this account performs at each hour: we keep one aggregate per account, not one per hour, so that measurement does not exist in our data.
Show engagement by hour posted, utc as a table
| Hour (UTC) | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00 UTC | -1% | 55K |
| 01:00 UTC | -2% | 56K |
| 02:00 UTC | -4% | 55K |
| 03:00 UTC | -4% | 58K |
| 04:00 UTC | -6% | 47K |
| 05:00 UTC | -4% | 46K |
| 06:00 UTC | -5% | 53K |
| 07:00 UTC | -5% | 57K |
| 08:00 UTC | -4% | 66K |
| 09:00 UTC | -4% | 76K |
| 10:00 UTC | -3% | 79K |
| 11:00 UTC | -3% | 85K |
| 12:00 UTC | -2% | 94K |
| 13:00 UTC | -3% | 103K |
| 14:00 UTC | -3% | 106K |
| 15:00 UTC | -1% | 109K |
| 16:00 UTC | -3% | 106K |
| 17:00 UTC | -2% | 99K |
| 18:00 UTC | -1% | 92K |
| 19:00 UTC | -2% | 87K |
| 20:00 UTC | -1% | 81K |
| 21:00 UTC | -1% | 72K |
| 22:00 UTC | -1% | 62K |
| 23:00 UTC | -2% | 56K |
Show engagement by day of week as a table
| Day | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| Sunday | +5% | 246K |
| Monday | +1% | 315K |
| Tuesday | -3% | 330K |
| Wednesday | -3% | 278K |
| Thursday | -2% | 256K |
| Friday | -3% | 267K |
| Saturday | +3% | 240K |
Best tweets
- Aug 18, 202662x their median
Today we released the August 2026 spam update. We'll update our ranking release history page when the rollout is complete: https://t.co/O9HQqBPAwY
- Jul 6, 202611x their median
https://t.co/fcBVVhFeYL
- Aug 5, 202610x their median
BRAND NEW AI SEO TIP THAT COSTS $0 AND TAKES UNDER 15 MINUTES 🚨 Use MY EXACT PROMPT in any (good) AI - Then upload or paste your page, and the AI will split it into ~300 token chunks the way a retriever would, then checks each chunk in isolation: Does the claim survive without the surrounding context? Because most AI search doesn't read your page - It's retrieving passages (chunks) from 5-50 different pages... Your content gets split into blocks before retrieval, then the model often pulls the chunks that match the query and ignores everything else. So if your claim sits in one chunk and the evidence supporting it sits in the next one, the retriever pulls ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER. Half a fact, no context = Unusable and usually not cited. And your rankings look completely fine while it's happening 🙃 Here's how to check in 15 minutes, for free: STEP 1 - Pick a page that SHOULD be getting cited Not your homepage - Pick a page that already ranks well, answers a real question, and isn't getting the love it should be from AI Overviews or chatbots. That gap is usually a chunking problem, not a content problem. STEP 2 - Grab the actual text Copy the body content - No nav, no footer, no sidebar - just what a retriever would actually work with. STEP 3 - Run this EXACT prompt Paste it into Claude, ChatGPT, Grok or Gemini along with your content: You are simulating how a retrieval system processes a web page for AI search. Take the content below and split it into chunks the way a retriever would: roughly 250-400 tokens each, breaking at natural heading and paragraph boundaries. Then evaluate EVERY chunk in complete isolation, as if it were the only text you had ever seen. For each one, output: 1. CHUNK NUMBER and the heading it sits under 2. STANDS ALONE: Yes / Partially / No 3. WHAT IT CLAIMS: the main assertion, in one sentence. Write "nothing assertable" if there isn't one. 4. IS THE CLAIM SUPPORTED INSIDE THIS CHUNK: Yes / No - is the evidence, number, example or reasoning present in this same chunk, or does it live elsewhere? 5. ORPHANED PRONOUNS: list every "it / they / this / the company / we" where the entity it refers to is NOT named inside this chunk 6. ENTITY PRESENT: is the main subject explicitly named in this chunk, or only implied? 7. CITABLE AS-IS: could a model quote or paraphrase this chunk in an answer without needing any other part of the page? Yes / No After the chunk-by-chunk breakdown, give me: - The 3 WEAKEST chunks and the specific reason each one fails - Every case where a CLAIM and its SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ended up in different chunks - A rewrite of the single worst chunk so that it stands completely alone Be harsh. Do not give credit for anything a human reader would infer from the rest of the page. If the chunk does not contain it, it does not exist. CONTENT: [paste your page here] STEP 4 - CITABLE AS-IS" That column is whether you need to upgrade that chunk or not (or have a writing agent do it for you) - And in AI SEO client pages that I run this through, nearly 95% of the chunks need fixing... STEP 5 - Fix the splits, not the writing You're not rewriting the page from scratch, you're moving things to the correct structure, format and order: - Pull the evidence UP into the same block as the claim - Name the entity again at the top of each section instead of relying on "it" - Break long sections with a heading BEFORE the claim, not after it - Move orphaned stats out of the conclusion and next to what they prove Same content, very similar word count, but completely different retrieval behaviour. I ran this on my link building services page example from the other day because whilst it's ranking very well in Google, it's not doing as well in ChatGPT or Claude - And the prompt found exactly why... Everyone in this industry is currently buying $500/mo dashboards to tell them they aren't getting cited. None of them tell you WHY. This does, it's FREE, and it takes 15 minutes. Plus it can be automated too 🎩
- Jul 27, 20267.0x their median
THIS IS WHAT GOOGLE WILL PROBABLY LOOK LIKE IN 2028 🚨 AI Mode is just the BETA... What Google is moving towards is a split interface. Left side ANSWERS you - Right side DOES something. Sometimes it generates a tool on the fly, e.g. a calculator, a comparison, a configurator, all built for your exact query in real time, with some cacheing for larger queries. Sometimes it browses a page FOR you and pulls out the exact paragraph, image or clip you needed.. Either way? You never leave Google's ecosystem, and they get to monetize you at every step of the journey, furthering their monopoly on search. Pure AI answers KILL ad inventory - That right hand panel is the most valuable real estate Google has ever created, and it fixes the revenue hole AI Overviews opened up. And they already own the browsing layer - Chrome, Gemini, Android, agentic browsing. They can show you "visiting" the source while never sending the click... They'll frame it as a better experience. For users, in a lot of cases it probably is. But for the publishers, independents, companies and organizations that rely on the traffic? Not so much...
- Aug 13, 20263.6x their median
David (@DavidGQuaid) is RIGHT!!! The most USELESS advice in SEO (and ESPECIALLY AI SEO) is "just write quality content." It sounds helpful, it commits to nothing, it is the professional equivalent of telling someone to be themselves before a job interview. And it has become actively harmful, because it points people at the one variable that has stopped being a differentiator. Here is what actually determines whether content performs now, and almost none of it is writing quality. Whether the answer arrives in the first two sentences, or whether the reader has to work for it. Whether a claim and the evidence supporting it sit in the same block of text, or get separated by four paragraphs of context. Whether the subject of a sentence is named explicitly, or referred to as "it" and "the company" until the machine loses track of who you are discussing. Whether a section could be quoted in isolation and still make sense, or whether it collapses without the rest of the page around it. Every one of those is a structural decision, not a writing decision. And a beautifully written page can fail all five. This matters more than it used to because AI systems do not read pages, they retrieve passages. Your content gets split into chunks before it is ever assessed. If your best material is structured for a human reading top to bottom, and the machine arrives mid-page and leaves four seconds later, the quality of your prose is irrelevant to the outcome. I have run this analysis across a lot of client pages this year. The losing page is very often the better written one. It is just built for the wrong reader. Your play: take one page that ranks well and gets no AI citations. Read each section in complete isolation, as if it were the only thing you had. Every section that stops making sense on its own is a section that cannot be cited. Good content was never a writing standard. It is an engineering standard, and it always was. We just used to be able to get away with ignoring that. The FULL methodology behind this is what I have spent six months building here: https://t.co/rFNxV0VrnI I know writing for users is what the internet and most people WANT, but in reality, it's not what Google (or the AIs...) want...
- Aug 17, 20263.5x their median
Okay, I thought it was a career highlight getting invited into @AlexHormozi private cohort, now I'm actually WINNING it and got a shout out from the main man himself 😅 Life has been a bit surreal the past few days... Can't wait to fly out to Acquisition HQ ✈️ https://t.co/lcSMai9MmL
- Aug 24, 20263.1x their median
Google's algorithm SUCKS now, and it's SUPER easy to manipulate with SEO - PLUS there are some seriously profitable ($$$$$) niches that AI Overviews STILL have NOT rolled out in (or at least not fully) yet: - iGaming - Casino, betting, poker, slots etc.. CRAZY competition but also CRAZY money. - Adult & Dating - Google isn't touching it with an AI answer. Ever. - CBD+THC / Kratom / Nootropics / Grey-market Supplements - Compliance-gated, transactional, wide open. - Crypto / DeFi - Regulatory landmines = muted AI coverage + high ticket. - High-Risk Finance - Payday, debt, high-risk merchant, forex. - Legal Lead Gen - Personal injury, DUI, mass tort. Pure pay-per-lead, minimal AIO, $100+ clicks. - Guns, Vape, Tobacco - Restricted ad category = restricted AI answer = open organic. Then go non-English while you're at it.. UAE gold, Norwegian finance, Indonesian casino, Brazil adult, Indian pharma, Turkish cosmetic surgery etc etc... Less competition, less AI, often MORE money!!! 👀 Not endorsing a bunch of these btw, but in this economy, no one is blaming you! 😅
- Aug 22, 20262.8x their median
I PERSONALLY pay $4.5k/year for Ahrefs... They COULD give me an AI agent with some credits I could get every month 😅 Instead I have to pay $99-$699/mo EACH to addon more users ($800/yr per user), get reports builder ($999/yr), generate AI articles ($990/yr for 50/mo), analyze my content with AI ($990/yr for 50/mo), check my AI citations ($6,900/yr or $1,990 per platform), Agent A ($99/mo), Agent B ($250-$1,000/yr), LetAIDO ($99/mo) and Firehose mention monitor ($39/mo - $299/mo) Pretty much ALL of this COULD have been included inside core Ahrefs and would have made it the most obvious tool to buy a $15k/yr sub ever... Literally the ALL IN ONE for SEO, AI SEO and content marketing. Instead you can quite easily up spending $15k/yr to have to use 4 different platforms, 3 different agents, multiple APIs and it tends to all also have downtime issues. Always been a massive fan, and still think it's the best suite in SEO, but corporates are gonna corporate! And in a world where you can vibe code a bunch of these things with free APIs and get a 50% equivalent, it doesn't make much sense to keep adding subs from all these hubs, but that's all they seem to be doing.. Hubspot, SEMRush, Ahrefs, they are all becoming jack of all trades, master of none, exactly when their moat is the mastership!
- Aug 22, 20262.8x their median
5 AI SEO tips are ACTUALLY working right NOW 🚨 All of this is what I'm seeing across sites I audit. Not theory. 1 - The chunk is the unit, not the page. AI answers lift PARAGRAPHS, not pages. Most sites don't have a single block an engine can safely quote. Open every key section with a flat "[X] is [Y]" line, strip the hedging and add confidence to your writing, no ifs/buts/maybes LITERALLY - Fastest points on the board, every time. 2 - Stop chasing Wikipedia panels. Everyone told you to go get a Knowledge Graph entry. The data says the opposite - High-cited pages average FEWER KG-verified entities than low-cited ones. Models reach for specific, niche entities: A named method, a precise stat, a named comparison. Schema is identity hygiene, not a citation lever and is quickly becoming irrelevant in AI search anyway.. Write dense, no prose, not famous. 3 - Mentions beat links for AI visibility. Brand mentions correlate ~3x stronger with AI Overview presence than backlinks do - Probably just because links have different anchor text and mentions power the specific entity+X optimization for your brand. Unlinked mentions are votes now. Get referenced across review sites, listicles, YouTube transcripts, PR - Get retrieved in 4+ third-party surfaces and your citation odds jump ~2.8x. The model gives the answer it sees agreed everywhere. 4 - Check the bots can even read your site... Half the "why am I not cited" problems are a Cloudflare or WAF rule silently blocking GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot and Google-Extended. Check your firewall + robots.txt BEFORE you touch content. You can't be the answer on a page nobody's allowed to crawl. 5 - Borrow authority you haven't built yet (aka, PARASITE SEO) Models overweight domains they already trust. A tight, answer-shaped chunk on a high-trust host gets pulled into answers instantly - While a fresh domain is still in the sandbox. Rent the trust, seed the entity, funnel the click or brand search. Consensus is the whole game.. Models predict the answer they see repeated everywhere. Your only job is to BE that answer, on every surface it pulls from - Sounds a lot easier than it is though 😅 If you want to learn the complete ins and outs, check out my profile...
- Aug 15, 20262.6x their median
WOW... First 30 mins in, and I am BLOWN AWAY by your support guys, it's at nearly $5k MRR already... 🙀
Ranked by total interactions across everything we have tracked for this account, which is a longer history than the 30-day window the rates above use. The multiple compares each post to this account's own median.
Recurring topics
The most frequent hashtags in the sampled posts. They describe what this account writes about; they are not a performance signal, and the catalog-wide breakdown on the hub shows how little hashtag count moves.
Buy or sell X accounts - escrow-protected
PlayerSells is an escrow marketplace for X accounts. Every deal is protected, with no middleman risk.
Reading these numbers
A typical post picks up 32 interactions against 97K followers, an engagement rate of 0.034%. Measured over 38 original posts, its engagement rate beats 33% of 4,085 tracked accounts of a similar size, which puts it in the middle of its size range rather than at either end. Posts are seen about 4.8K times each, and 0.671% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 4.98% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 2.2 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 53% of days. Most posts go out around 05:00 UTC, and Thursday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 38 posts sampled, 79% carry an image or video, 16% are part of a thread and 45% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 2.0K interactions, about 62x its own typical post.
- What is Charles Floate 📈's engagement rate on X?
- Charles Floate 📈 (@Charles_SEO) has an engagement rate of 0.034%, based on the median interactions across 38 original posts from the last 30 days against 97,178 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.034%, Charles Floate 📈 sits above the 25th percentile of the 39,683 accounts in this comparison. Those comparison accounts are all large ones, because our scanning cadence is weighted towards big accounts, so this is a ranking among peers of similar scale rather than a ranking across X.
- Does @Charles_SEO have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 33% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (4,085 accounts), which puts it in the middle of its size range group. Ranking inside a size band matters because engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly re-measure the follower count. It is a starting point for a look at follower quality, not a verdict on it.
- When does @Charles_SEO post?
- Most posts go out around 05:00 UTC, and Thursday is its busiest day, at roughly 2.17 posts per day across the measured window.