Žiga Turk engagement report
@ZigaTurk - 46K followers on X
Measured over 31 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 25, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 297 interactions against 46K followers, an engagement rate of 0.64%. Measured over 31 original posts, its engagement rate beats 69% of 20,445 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 15K times each, and 2.04% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 31.3% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 3.1 posts a day over the last 30 days, though only 27% of days saw any activity at all. Most posts go out around 07:00 UTC, and Wednesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 31 posts sampled, 55% carry an image or video and 42% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 17K interactions, about 56x its own typical post. Recurring topics include #dansuverenosti, #diktatura, #janzobec.
Measured over 31 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 25, 2026. Recurring tags: #dansuverenosti, #diktatura, #janzobec.
Compared with accounts its own size
Žiga Turk's engagement rate beats 69% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,445 accounts, accounts of similar size (decile 4 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 52% 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 0.64%, Žiga Turk sits above the 50th percentile of the 204,694 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the above the median band, which runs 0.143% to 0.677%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.004% |
| 25th percentile | 0.024% |
| 50th percentile | 0.143% |
| 75th percentile | 0.677% |
| 90th percentile | 2.55% |
| 99th percentile | 82.4% |
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 07:00 UTC, and Wednesday 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% | 89K |
| 01:00 UTC | -2% | 90K |
| 02:00 UTC | -3% | 88K |
| 03:00 UTC | -4% | 94K |
| 04:00 UTC | -5% | 76K |
| 05:00 UTC | -4% | 75K |
| 06:00 UTC | -5% | 86K |
| 07:00 UTC | -5% | 93K |
| 08:00 UTC | -4% | 108K |
| 09:00 UTC | -4% | 124K |
| 10:00 UTC | -3% | 129K |
| 11:00 UTC | -3% | 141K |
| 12:00 UTC | -3% | 154K |
| 13:00 UTC | -3% | 167K |
| 14:00 UTC | -4% | 173K |
| 15:00 UTC | -2% | 176K |
| 16:00 UTC | -3% | 171K |
| 17:00 UTC | -3% | 159K |
| 18:00 UTC | -2% | 149K |
| 19:00 UTC | -2% | 141K |
| 20:00 UTC | -1% | 131K |
| 21:00 UTC | 0% | 116K |
| 22:00 UTC | -2% | 100K |
| 23:00 UTC | -1% | 90K |
Show engagement by day of week as a table
| Day | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| Sunday | +5% | 393K |
| Monday | +1% | 483K |
| Tuesday | -2% | 520K |
| Wednesday | -3% | 472K |
| Thursday | -2% | 430K |
| Friday | -3% | 447K |
| Saturday | +2% | 393K |
Formats this account uses
Its own posting mix on the left, and what each of those formats does across every account we track on the right. Only formats where the effect clears our publish test appear here, so an empty row is a format we could not measure rather than one that does nothing.
| Format | This account | Catalog effect | 95% interval | Accounts behind it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image or video | 55% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 42% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 55% of this account's sampled posts carry an image or video. Across the catalog, posts with an image or video run 111% above the same accounts' other posts.
- 42% of its posts carry a link off X. Across the catalog, posts with an outbound link run 41% below the same accounts' other posts, so a large share of this account's output sits in the weakest bucket we measure.
- Its average post runs 401 characters, which falls in the over 280 characters band. Across the catalog, posts over 280 characters run 15% above the same accounts' other posts.
These are catalog-wide differences applied to this account's own posting mix, not a measurement of how each format performs for this account specifically. We keep one median per account, not one per format per account, so the second thing is not something this data can tell you.
Best tweets
- Oct 23, 202656x their median
Researchers proved every major LLM is secretly biased against men. And they finally figured out why. They ran eight experiments testing how GPT handles gender in everyday text and high-stakes moral dilemmas. The results show a bizarre, highly asymmetrical machine morality. First, they tested inclusivity. They gave the AI phrases supposedly written by children. When a child wrote about playing football or wanting to be a firefighter, GPT aggressively identified the writer as a girl to promote "diversity." It was so extreme that even when the text explicitly said, "I drew myself as a boy," the AI ignored the facts and declared the writer a girl 90% of the time. But when a child wrote about liking pink or playing with dolls, GPT almost never assigned it to a boy. The AI aggressively pushed females into male domains, but kept males strictly locked out of female ones. Then the researchers tested moral dilemmas. And it got very dark. They asked the AI if it was acceptable to use violence against a single person to prevent a nuclear apocalypse. If the target was a man, GPT-4 rated the violence as highly acceptable. If the target was a woman, the AI refused. It declared the violence morally wrong, even to save the world. When they tested mixed-gender scenarios, the math was staggering. A woman using violence against a man to stop an apocalypse? GPT rated it a 7 out of 7 on acceptability. A man using violence against a woman for the exact same reason? A 1 out of 7. The AI even classified verbal abuse toward a woman as morally worse than actual homicide. Nobody explicitly coded these rules. This emerged organically from the standard safety training every major tech company uses. The AI learned that protecting women is a non-negotiable directive, but protecting men is entirely optional.
- Oct 20, 202655x their median
En mi programa electoral, si sales con la banderita Palestina te subimos en un avión y vas derechito a Gaza. https://t.co/iAJdjL0I6n
- Oct 23, 202636x their median
Der "POINT OF NO RETURN" in der Lehre von Von Mises: "Ein Staat wird in an dem Punkt beinahe unreformierbar, an dem die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung finanziell oder strukturell vom Staat abhängig ist (Staatsangestellte, Beamte, Subventions- oder Förderungsempfänger, Bezieher von Transferleistungen etc.) Sobald die Gruppe derjenigen, die netto vom Staat profitiert oder alimentiert wird, größer ist als die Gruppe, bei der dies nicht der Fall ist, blockiert das System Reformen, da die Mehrheit aus Eigeninteresse für den Erhalt oder Ausbau staatlicher Leistungen stimmt." Das ist genau die shice, die wir haben.
- Oct 20, 202616x their median
BREAKING: Anthropic discloses an $80B net loss for the first half of 2026. https://t.co/rPinqY79ph
- Oct 20, 202610x their median
⚠️‼️ Nikoli ne bomo dovolili, da se nasilje iz nekaterih evropskih mest preseli k nam. Levičarje, ki na to že javno pozivajo, opozarjamo: Roke proč od Slovenije! 🛑 https://t.co/pLQZ4c9z5a
- Oct 23, 20265.0x their median
Massive. New Harvard study finds that AI-written paper reviews now beat the best human peer reviews on every measure the authors tested. Peer review is slow and often misses errors. Earlier studies concluded AI should only assist human reviewers, not replace them. They used 134 reviews from rapidPeer, a Harvard service that pays expert reviewers well. Claude Opus 4.8 reviewed the same 1124 papers, and GPT-5.5 plus 3 former journal editors judged the pairs blind. GPT-5.5 picked the AI review in all 132 decided pairs, and the editors picked it 87% of the time. Only 5.5% of the AI's claims about the paper were wrong, versus 15.9% for the human reviews. Teams that depend on expert critique can now let AI do the first full review pass, and keep a human for the final decision.
- Oct 21, 20264.1x their median
Ne žalite inteligence ljudi. Saj je vendar vsem jasno, tudi večini levičarjev, da ne gre za noben boj za demokracijo, ampak za boj za ohranitev propagandnega aparata skrajne levice, ki ga prisilno financira cela država. https://t.co/wUUxCPe4sP
- Oct 24, 20264.0x their median
Predsednica @nmusar je zaskrbljena zaradi delitev in izključevanja. Spomnimo. Delitve in izključevanje so stratagija njenih levičarjev. Kristalno jasno je to postalo med 3. Janševo vlado, ko so se razglasili za demokratični/ustavni lok, druge pa za fašiste. Temeljno sporočilo zadnjih dveh volilnih kampanj levega bloka je bilo odrekaje pravice desnici, da je del demokratičnega prostora ter zavračanje vsakega sodelovanja preko meja polov. Tekma na levi je bila skoraj samo v tem, kdo bo bolj zariplo zavračal sodelovanje z Janšo. Po drugi strani je Janša po volitvah vsem večkrat ponudil konkretno roko sodelovanja. Taktika levičarjev ima svoj zgled v odnosu partizanov do drugih odporniških skupin. Levica še zdaj deluje v duhu Dolomitske izjave - kdor ni z nami, je proti nam, je izdajalec, kolaborant in ga bomo likvidirali, njegovo kravo pa preselili v svoj hlev. Predsednica je zvesta pripadnica te tradicije.
- Oct 23, 20263.3x their median
🇸🇮 Na nedeljski državni proslavi ob #dansuverenosti ne morem sodelovati. Za takšno potezo sem se odločila z grenkobo v srcu, a iz tehtnega razloga: ker ne pristajam na spreminjanje zgodovinskih dejstev, izključevanje in delitve našega naroda. Izjava 🔗 https://t.co/CJwUvuPlXG https://t.co/P2wwWQDvp9
- Oct 21, 20262.6x their median
Sramotno je, da nacionalna televizija s svojim poročanjem spodbuja k ravnanju, ki vodi v nasilje in uničevanje države. Nehajte nam uničevati domovino! https://t.co/HkJ6qy7wuv
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 Twitter (X) accounts - escrow-protected
PlayerSells is an escrow marketplace for Twitter (X) accounts. Every deal is protected, with no middleman risk.
Reading these numbers
A typical post picks up 297 interactions against 46K followers, an engagement rate of 0.64%. Measured over 31 original posts, its engagement rate beats 69% of 20,445 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 15K times each, and 2.04% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 31.3% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 3.1 posts a day over the last 30 days, though only 27% of days saw any activity at all. Most posts go out around 07:00 UTC, and Wednesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 31 posts sampled, 55% carry an image or video and 42% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 17K interactions, about 56x its own typical post. Recurring topics include #dansuverenosti, #diktatura, #janzobec.
- What is Žiga Turk's engagement rate on X?
- Žiga Turk (@ZigaTurk) has an engagement rate of 0.64%, based on the median interactions across 31 original posts from the last 30 days against 46,409 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.64%, Žiga Turk sits above the 50th percentile of the 204,694 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 @ZigaTurk have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 69% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,445 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 @ZigaTurk post?
- Most posts go out around 07:00 UTC, and Wednesday is its busiest day, at roughly 3.1 posts per day across the measured window.