Measured against views, "good" is the same everywhere

Now recompute the exact same metric against impressions, on the 501,303 posts with synced analytics, and the ten-fold spread almost vanishes. This table divides by impressions.

The "good" column here barely moves: a good post gets above roughly 4% of its viewers to engage at almost any size (4.99% under 1k, down to 3.64% at 100k+). This is the closest thing LinkedIn has to a universal pass mark. If your posts clear ~4% of viewers, your writing is good, full stop, whatever your follower count says.

That contrast is the most useful thing on this page. The versus-followers ladder spans more than ten to one because it is mostly a reach story; the versus-impressions ladder is nearly flat because it is a content story, and good content converts viewers at a similar clip regardless of how big you are.

Where do you actually stand on these ladders? MagicPost's LinkedIn analytics compute your engagement rate per post, both ways, against your own history, so "good for my size" stops being a guess. And if you want these reference ladders recomputed on fresh data every month without redoing the math, the MagicPost Benchmark delivers them to your inbox on a monthly subscription.