Sourced writing on how LinkedIn search works, how AI visibility works, and where the platforms draw their limits. Every claim has a source under it.
Most writing about the LinkedIn algorithm cites other writing about the LinkedIn algorithm. LinkedIn, meanwhile, publishes its ranking systems as papers. This piece takes only what those papers and official statements say — and names what has never been stated anywhere.
Read →This is the single most repeated claim in LinkedIn advice. Open its sources and something odd appears: the most-cited study rests on seven posts from one account, a limitation the study itself printed.
Read →Most guidance still says ChatGPT runs on Bing. The 2026 data does not support that — and the correction changes what is worth doing on your site.
Read →The confident answer everyone gives — three to five a week — does not come from a study. Go to the sources and a different finding appears: which weeks you post in matters more than how many times you post.
Read →“It was already public” is not a defence in Turkey. The Board rejected it in two separate decisions and in a public announcement. This piece is informational, not legal advice — it shows what the decisions say.
Read →The headline everyone obsesses over is the second lever, not the first. The real one is the title field in your experience section, and LinkedIn’s own engineering papers say why.
Read →However much you publish on LinkedIn, ChatGPT cannot read you there. The reason is technical and verifiable — and that same technical fact dictates what actually works.
Read →Plenty of tools promise automatic comment replies. Doing that through the API is not possible; where it happens, it happens through browser automation, and the risk lands on the user’s account.
Read →