I would assume that if "probability that other users will positively engage with a tweet" is the primary determiner of reach, then the more you can help Twitter accurately predict that probability, the better, because otherwise the default probability is likely no higher than middle-of-the-pack.
If that assumption holds, then I would guess this type of algorithm favors consistency of content. In other words, someone who picks a certain topic and consistently tweets only about that topic is going to be easier to form predictions around versus someone whose tweets show much more variety, in topics, styles, etc.
What that might mean, from a "gaming the system" point of view, is that if you're a person who intends to primarily tweet about two or three disparate things, you might be better off creating a separate account for each, rather than a single account where engagement is harder to predict.
In all the infinite wisdom of developers and tech gurus, we get dictatorial systems that rigidly force dumb and obtuse rules and stupid "success scripts" on creative people that only end up rewarding trust fund babies, scammers, and/or hackers... Leaving the most talented and original creators to wither in obscurity.
Social media sites like Twitter (Now Titter) have brought out the worst in us, and now that they're collapsing under their own arrogant leaders, no one is really considering the lessons learned... They can't exist without creators, but creators can exist and function on any platform. Screw Twitter's dictatorial algorithm, mastering it does not help anyone to be creative and successful unless they're trust fund babies, scammers, and/or hackers.
Let's be honest here: vast majority of "talented and original creators" on social media are the ones seeking out, sharing, and geeking about "success scripts". And, of course, social media isn't unique here. This is a story as old as time: any activity that has a competitive element to it gets dominated by those "playing to win". It's true in every aspect of life. I feel the only way to avoid it is to suppress the entire competitive angle - which means removing the rewards altogether, or making them purely random, as any correlation between activity and reward will attract people willing to game the activity.
You can also throw the ball, aka gameification of parts of the activity, so the success nerds can be busy romping and playing, while the other grown ups get on with the actual fun part.
Unfortunately, "success nerds" end up owning their social status, and they also generate buzz. Frantic activity is a catnip from entrepreneurs, so sooner or later, those "success nerds" end up being the ones making real money off their "success", and as money tends to corrupt things, your activity becomes controlled by the "success nerds", for their own benefit, and the benefit of their sponsors.
See also the Iron Law of Bureaucracy[0], which is closely related[1].
EDIT:
The "success nerds" are usually the grown-ups, encouraged by non-participating grown-ups who see the entire activity as just a money printer.
Incidentally, those same conditions seems to apply to other sites. Lots of Youtubers have multiple channels (a main channel, a livestream channel, a shorts channel).
I've thought many times over the years that I would love to be able to subscribe to a particular playlist or "show" from a channel. There is several channels that I want to see their main stuff, but not their side content. Or a particular game from a lets-play-er, but not their other games.
Surprisingly Youtube did have that functionality, though it was removed quite a while ago. I specifically remembering being able to subscribe to "Is It A Good Idea To Microwave This?" (in the late '2000s time range), without also subscribing to the other videos on the channel.
It doesn't work exactly the same as a subscription, but you can add a playlist from a channel to your library, if the channel offers one that fits what you want.
For example the channel Accursed Farms puts out a Half-Life based show called Freeman's Mind which I love, but I'm not huge on the rest of their content, so I follow their playlist and can easily get just the content I want.
> Why can't I just post about what interests me right now?
You mean you can’t post without probably messing with some bizarre algorithm that is running YouTube discovery?
Because I’m quite sure you can post about whatever you want.
The problem I see is that you’re mixing two aspects of the creation process.
There’s your desire and curiosity driving you towards creating videos on one end there’s whatever YouTube wants on the other which usually is keeping people glued on their phones to consume as much content as they can.
It’s up to you to decide what is more valuable here. If you want to play the YouTube game you have to accept their idiotic rules which includes posting daily, making stupid shorts, making reactionary content and all that.
OR you can decide that it’s more important for you to make videos you find interesting and stop caring about vanity metrics.
Side note: those three images in your post are completely unnecessary and add nothing to the overall quality of the post. I’d personally remove them and stick with just the content.
That doesn't really make sense because most big accounts tweet about a range of topics. There's pretty well established ways for estimating the probability based on how the range of topics you might tweet about would match with the range of topics a user likes. That means you have to try and figure out what your base likes to see, and be like that. Tweeting about only a single topic means that you're only targeting people who are likely to like tweets from accounts that tweet about that one topic.
> That doesn't really make sense because most big twitter accounts tweet about a range of topics.
People engage with celebrities on everything. If an A list celeb announces they enjoy a slice of lemon in hot water, twenty news articles will be published around the world.
Uh, the article also points out that the algorithm itself can't tell you anything definitive about how a given tweet will be ranked without the training data.
If that assumption holds, then I would guess this type of algorithm favors consistency of content. In other words, someone who picks a certain topic and consistently tweets only about that topic is going to be easier to form predictions around versus someone whose tweets show much more variety, in topics, styles, etc.
What that might mean, from a "gaming the system" point of view, is that if you're a person who intends to primarily tweet about two or three disparate things, you might be better off creating a separate account for each, rather than a single account where engagement is harder to predict.