WIRED Science engagement report

Compared with accounts its own size

WIRED Science's engagement rate beats 6% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (3,739 accounts, accounts of similar size (decile 10 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 2% 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 under 0.001%, WIRED Science sits below the 10th percentile of the 36,378 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the bottom 25% band, which runs below 0.012%.

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 09:00 UTC, and Tuesday 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.

Reading these numbers

A typical post picks up 3 interactions against 1.8M followers, an engagement rate of 0%. Measured over 88 original posts, its engagement rate beats 6% of 3,739 tracked accounts of a similar size. That is a reason to look at how the audience behaves - reply depth, saves, whether the followers are recent - rather than a conclusion about it on its own. Posts are seen about 6.5K times each, and 0.046% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 0.362% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 2.9 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 77% of days. Most posts go out around 09:00 UTC, and Tuesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 88 posts sampled, 100% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 246 interactions, about 82x its own typical post.

What is WIRED Science's engagement rate on X?

WIRED Science (@WIREDScience) has an engagement rate of 0%, based on the median interactions across 88 original posts from the last 30 days against 1,809,231 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.

Is that a good engagement rate?

At under 0.001%, WIRED Science sits below the 10th percentile of the 36,378 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 @WIREDScience have real engagement?

Its engagement rate beats 6% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (3,739 accounts), which puts it in the bottom 10% for its size 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 @WIREDScience post?

Most posts go out around 09:00 UTC, and Tuesday is its busiest day, at roughly 2.93 posts per day across the measured window.