Jeff Bullas engagement report
@jeffbullas - 535K followers on X
Measured over 77 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 15, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 11 interactions against 535K followers, an engagement rate of 0.002%. Measured over 77 original posts, its engagement rate beats 17% of 21,185 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 2.4K times each, and 0.457% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 0.449% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 2.6 posts a day over the last 30 days, though only 33% of days saw any activity at all. Most posts go out around 13:00 UTC, and Wednesday is the busiest day of the week. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 413 interactions, about 38x its own typical post.
Measured over 77 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 15, 2026.
Compared with accounts its own size
Jeff Bullas's engagement rate beats 17% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (21,185 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 29% 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 0.002%, Jeff Bullas sits below the 10th percentile of the 212,741 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the bottom 25% band, which runs below 0.025%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.004% |
| 25th percentile | 0.025% |
| 50th percentile | 0.146% |
| 75th percentile | 0.697% |
| 90th percentile | 2.61% |
| 99th percentile | 82.8% |
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 13:00 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 | 4% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 0% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 4% 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.
- 0% of its posts carry a link off X. Across the catalog, posts with an outbound link run 41% below the same accounts' other posts.
- Its average post runs 468 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 11, 202638x their median
A question for anyone over 40. Has AI made you more excited about your future, or more uncertain about it? I'm not talking about whether you use ChatGPT at work. I'm asking whether it's changed what you believe is possible for the next 10 or 20 years of your life. A different career. A business. A creative project. Or perhaps a future that suddenly feels less secure. I'm interested in what AI is changing in people's lives, not just their productivity.
- Oct 12, 202616x their median
My biggest worry about AI isn't for people my age. It's for the young and their first job. Most of us learned our trade doing junior work. The drafts. The research. The rough first versions. AI now does much of that. If young people skip those years, where will their judgment come from?
- Oct 14, 202614x their median
At 51 I applied for around 700 jobs. One word kept coming back: overqualified. It sounded like a compliment. It meant: we can't see where you fit. At 52 I started a blog instead. Now I'm 69 and building an AI company. I stopped waiting for someone to tell me I fit.
- Oct 11, 202611x their median
I don’t want an AI assistant that agrees with me. I want one that notices what I’ve missed. That asks for evidence. That challenges an assumption. That points out when I’m contradicting myself. Agreement feels good. But it can be expensive when you’re making an important decision. The best human advisers I’ve known weren’t always comfortable to talk to. They were useful because they were willing to disagree. Why should we expect less from AI?
- Oct 12, 202611x their median
Honest question for anyone over 40. Is AI making your career feel safer? Or shakier?
- Sep 13, 20267.8x their median
I'm a bit older than 50 and building an AI startup. 😉 There are probably 100 reasons I'm supposed to be too old to do that. I just don't believe them. I've lived through PCs, the web, Google, blogging, Facebook, Twitter, smartphones, the social graph, the interest graph and now generative AI. That doesn't make me smarter than a 25-year-old founder. It gives me something different. Pattern recognition. Scar tissue. And I mean the mental and made mistakes scar kind. Memory of what the last "revolution that changes everything" actually changed. And suspicion when somebody tells me this time all the old rules are dead. AI is making information cheap. Increasingly, everyone will have access to extraordinary intelligence. That makes me think experience may become more valuable, not less. Because the scarce skill won't be knowing more. It will be knowing: What matters. What is noise. What has been tried before. What deserves a second look. And when the smart answer is completely wrong. Age isn't always technical debt. Sometimes it's accumulated capital.
- Aug 25, 20267.7x their median
Here is a trap I think more of us will fall into. You ask ChatGPT a hard question. Then Claude. Then Gemini. They all give roughly the same answer. You think: “Three AIs agree. It must be right.” Not necessarily. A 2026 study found that AI advice can exert social influence much like human advice. And several AI systems may share similar training data, assumptions and patterns. So three answers are not automatically three independent votes. For important decisions, I am starting to use AI differently. Instead of asking three machines: “What should I do?” I ask these 4 questions: • What Is The Strongest Reason This Advice Is Wrong? • Which Assumption Is Doing Most Of The Work? • What Evidence Would Reverse Your Recommendation? • What Would A Smart Person Who Disagrees Say? AI gives us abundant advice. But the scarce skill is knowing when agreement is evidence and when it is merely repetition. Source: Scientific Reports, 2026
- Oct 13, 20266.9x their median
308 people over 40 told me how AI makes them feel about their future. One pattern made me uncomfortable. Several people in their 50s said they feel excited because they have savings. One wrote: "At 50 I've accumulated wealth and assets so I'll be set." People near 40 sounded squeezed. One said: "Coming up to 40 is the worst position." Feeling excited about AI may depend on having money behind you.
- Aug 24, 20266.3x their median
One thing keeps bothering me as I think about humans competing with intelligent machines. AI has advantages we cannot match. It can read faster. Remember more. Work longer. Compare millions of possibilities. Operate at a scale no human can approach. But there is one strange thing missing. It doesn't need anything to matter. It doesn't wake up wanting to build a company. It doesn't worry about its children. It doesn't feel the sting of failure. It doesn't fall in love with a problem and spend ten years trying to solve it. Humans have limited intelligence, limited time and limited energy. But those limits force us to choose what matters. Perhaps that is not merely a weakness. Meaning may be one of the reasons human judgment remains valuable in a world of almost unlimited intelligence.
- Aug 30, 20266.2x their median
AI has created a problem I did not expect. It can make a bad idea look good. Give it a mediocre business idea. It can then produce: A beautiful name. A polished logo. A convincing landing page. Apolished presentation A detailed strategy. A launch campaign. Suddenly the idea feels much more real. But nothing important has actually been proven. Nobody bought it. Nobody needed it. Nobody cared. AI has dramatically reduced the cost of polish. Making it shiny attractive product That means polish contains less information than it used to. A beautiful presentation once suggested significant effort had gone into the idea. Now it may have taken twenty minutes. The danger isn't that AI produces poor work. Quite the opposite. It can make weak ideas look professionally convincing. So perhaps we need to separate two questions: Does this look good? & Is this actually good?
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.
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 11 interactions against 535K followers, an engagement rate of 0.002%. Measured over 77 original posts, its engagement rate beats 17% of 21,185 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 2.4K times each, and 0.457% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 0.449% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 2.6 posts a day over the last 30 days, though only 33% of days saw any activity at all. Most posts go out around 13:00 UTC, and Wednesday is the busiest day of the week. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 413 interactions, about 38x its own typical post.
- What is Jeff Bullas's engagement rate on X?
- Jeff Bullas (@jeffbullas) has an engagement rate of 0.002%, based on the median interactions across 77 original posts from the last 30 days against 535,319 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.002%, Jeff Bullas sits below the 10th percentile of the 212,741 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 @jeffbullas have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 17% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (21,185 accounts), which puts it in the bottom quarter 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 @jeffbullas post?
- Most posts go out around 13:00 UTC, and Wednesday is its busiest day, at roughly 2.6 posts per day across the measured window.