For almost two years, I published three or four substantive posts on LinkedIn every week.

The intention behind it was clear. I wanted to reach the creators I could help most, the people who might become newsletter readers, students, and members of Antifragile Creative.

Some of it worked. My following grew. So did my "connections".

What didn't grow enough to match the effort were newsletter subscriptions and paying memberships.

The gap didn't show up all at once. It widened slowly, and I stayed optimistic through most of it. The next post, the next formula borrowed from a creator who swore by it, the next few months of consistency might be the thing that changed it.

That optimism had its reasons. It also made it easy to keep going without asking what the results were actually telling me.

When some of it is working

Partial results are hard to read. Every new follower is a small reason to continue. Growth in one place makes it reasonable to believe growth in the other is just slower, still on its way.

I kept encountering creators who described LinkedIn as a reliable source of clients and customers. They shared impressive results alongside the systems that had produced them. I tried several of those approaches without seeing much change in the outcomes I cared about.

Eventually, I found myself asking: Why does this work so well for them and not for me?

There were useful things to investigate in that question. Different audiences, different offers, different circumstances. But I was already leaning toward an explanation: the method worked, and I was missing something.

The question had become a way to judge myself before I understood what was happening.

Looking without a verdict

When I stepped back to evaluate the practice, I returned to my initial intention.

Followers and connections showed a first layer of connection inside LinkedIn. But too little of that growth was carrying through to the newsletter and community to justify the effort I was putting in.

The question became more specific: Was this serving the intention well enough to keep giving it that much attention?

After almost two years of regular posting and trying different approaches, my answer was no. I could make that assessment without treating it as a verdict on my ability or commitment.

I began posting less often, and later paused altogether. The intention stayed the same. The approach changed gradually, with room to return if LinkedIn became useful to that intention again.

None of this required a full explanation of why it wasn't working well enough for me.

What I still don't know

I've never fully answered that question.

My best guess is that the people I most wanted to reach either weren't spending much time on LinkedIn, or the posts weren't connecting with them when they were. Both could be true. Neither is certain.

Understanding that would still be useful. It could help me decide what to try next or what to change if I returned.

It's tempting, though, to make that understanding a requirement. Explain what went wrong, then decide what to do. A clear explanation can take a long time to arrive, and sometimes it doesn't arrive at all. Meanwhile, the effort continues.

I knew enough to reduce the time I was giving LinkedIn, even while the reasons for its limited results stayed unresolved.

If there's something you've kept going on the strength of partial results, try returning to what you intended it to do. Is it serving that intention well enough to keep giving it the same attention?

You can keep investigating why while making a small change to what you do next.

Until next week, may knowing where you stand be enough to take the next step.

Jeff