LinkedIn is the only social platform where people will publicly congratulate someone they've never met on a promotion they don't care about. It's a strange place. Somewhere between a professional conference and a high school reunion, except everyone is trying to sell you something and the refreshments are just ads for SaaS products.

But some behaviors are more than strange. They're actively sabotaging the people who do them. Not in a dramatic, career-ending way. More in a slow, "everyone has muted you and you don't know it" way.

We analyzed 10,222 LinkedIn posts from 494 creators to figure out what actually works. Along the way, we got a very clear picture of what doesn't. Here are the ten most annoying things people do on LinkedIn, why the data says they should stop and what to do instead.

1. Engagement Bait ("Comment YES If You Agree")

The classic. A generic statement followed by "Comment YES if you agree" or "Like if this resonates" or the ever-popular "Share with someone who needs to hear this."

It's the LinkedIn equivalent of a street performer who won't stop staring at you until you drop a coin in the hat. Except the hat is a comments section and the performance is a sentence about believing in yourself.

Why it's annoying: It treats your audience like trained seals. You're not starting a conversation. You're issuing a command. And everyone knows why you're doing it: to game the algorithm, not because you care what people think. The condescension is the quiet part that everyone hears.

What the data says: LinkedIn officially started penalizing engagement bait in 2022 and has tightened the screws since. The algorithm now distinguishes between low-effort responses (one-word comments, emoji reactions) and meaningful engagement (comments with substance, back-and-forth discussion). Polls, the classic engagement bait format, average just 25 likes and a 0.07% engagement rate in our dataset. That's not low. That's functionally dead. For context, that's roughly the same engagement you'd get from posting your WiFi password.

What to do instead: Ask a real question. Not "agree?" but "What's been your experience with X?" or share a specific take and invite pushback. Posts that generate genuine discussion get boosted by the algorithm. Social Media Marketing content averages 210 comments per post, not from "comment YES" tactics, but from authors taking clear positions that people actually want to respond to.

Pro tip: Before you add any call to engage, ask yourself: "Would this question work in an actual conversation?" If someone at a dinner party said "Comment YES if you agree that networking matters," you'd slowly back away. Apply the same standard to your posts.

2. The Fake Humility Post ("I'm So Honored/Humbled")

"I'm incredibly humbled to announce that I've been named to the Forbes 30 Under 30 list. I couldn't have done it without my amazing team, mentors and everyone who believed in me from the beginning."

The word "humbled" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It's carrying the entire weight of a sentence that is, by every possible measure, the opposite of humble.

Why it's annoying: Nobody who writes "I'm humbled" is actually feeling humble. The word "humbled" has been so overused on LinkedIn that it now means the opposite of what it says. It's a flex wearing a costume. We all know what "I'm humbled to share" really means: "I'm about to brag but I'd like you to think I'm being modest about it."

The generic gratitude is the other giveaway. "Everyone who believed in me from the beginning" is a phrase that credits everyone and therefore credits no one. It's a participation trophy disguised as acknowledgment.

What the data says: Personal achievement posts can perform well when they include genuine specificity. The top viral post in our dataset got 11,576 likes (a funding announcement with an image). But notice: that was a concrete milestone with a visual, not a vague claim of humility. The posts that fall flat are the ones that substitute real detail with emotional words that mean nothing.

What to do instead: If you accomplished something worth sharing, share it directly. "We raised $4.2M" is more compelling than "I'm humbled to share." Give credit to specific people with specific contributions instead of a generic "everyone who believed in me." "Our lead engineer Sarah rebuilt the entire backend in three months, which is the main reason this round happened" is interesting. "My amazing team" is wallpaper.

Pro tip: Run the "humbled" test. Replace "I'm humbled" with "I'm bragging" and see if the sentence is more honest. If it is, rewrite the sentence. You're allowed to be proud of achievements. Just own it.

3. The "Thoughts?" Screenshot Post With Zero Original Insight

Someone screenshots a headline, a tweet or a chart. The caption is: "Thoughts?" That's it. The entire post is asking other people to do the thinking.

It's the professional equivalent of forwarding an article to your group chat with no comment. You're not contributing to the conversation. You're pointing at the conversation and hoping someone else starts it.

Why it's annoying: You're outsourcing your perspective. The implicit message is "I saw something interesting but I'm too lazy (or too cautious) to have an opinion about it." It's content creation with zero creation. The screenshot is someone else's work. The "Thoughts?" is a question that took less effort than ordering coffee. The post is a shell with nothing inside it.

What the data says: Text-only posts average 191 likes in our data, while image posts average 468. Adding an image helps, but only if you're also adding value. A screenshot with no commentary is technically an image post, but it doesn't benefit from the same engagement boost because there's nothing to engage with. The image needs a take. Without one, you've posted a picture of someone else's opinion and asked your audience to supply yours.

What to do instead: Lead with your opinion. "This chart shows X, but I think it's misleading because Y." "Everyone is saying Z about this headline, but they're missing the point." Give people something to agree or disagree with. Your take IS the content. The screenshot is just supporting evidence.

Pro tip: If you genuinely don't have an opinion about the thing you're screenshotting, don't post it. Not every interesting thing you see needs to become a LinkedIn post. Sometimes you can just... read something and move on with your day. Revolutionary concept, I know.

4. Polls That Nobody Cares About

"What's more important for career growth? A) Networking B) Skills C) Luck D) All of the above"

These polls are the LinkedIn equivalent of those personality quizzes that tell you which type of bread you are. They feel like you're participating in something. You're not.

Why it's annoying: The question is unanswerable. The options are arbitrary. The results are meaningless. And the real purpose is never genuine curiosity. It's always to generate cheap engagement. Nobody is collecting this data for a research paper. Nobody is going to change their business strategy based on what 147 random connections clicked. The entire exercise is performance.

What the data says: This one is unambiguous. Polls in our dataset average 25 likes and a 0.07% engagement rate. For context, the average post across all formats gets 288 likes. Polls get less than 10% of that. The format is dead. LinkedIn's algorithm has deprioritized polls significantly, likely because the platform recognized that poll engagement is shallow and doesn't indicate genuine interest.

The math is bleak: Even a text-only post with no image, no hook and no particular effort averages 191 likes. A poll averages 25. You would perform nearly 8x better by writing a few sentences about your actual opinion than by creating a four-option poll about nothing.

What to do instead: If you genuinely want audience input, write a text post with a specific question and ask people to answer in the comments. Comments carry much more algorithmic weight than poll clicks. "I'm choosing between strategy A and strategy B for our Q2 launch. Here's the tradeoff [explain]. Which would you pick and why?" That's a real conversation starter. It also makes you look like a thoughtful professional rather than someone running a survey for no reason.

Pro tip: If you absolutely must use polls, make the options interesting enough that people want to discuss their choice. "What's the most overrated business book? A) Good to Great B) The Lean Startup C) Zero to One D) Other (comment)" at least sparks debate. "What matters more: skills or attitude?" sparks nothing.

5. The LinkedIn Live Nobody Watches (Then Claims "Great Turnout")

Someone goes live. Four people watch. Two are co-founders, one is a friend doing them a favor, one wandered in by accident and is now watching with the same energy as someone who took a wrong turn into an alley.

The next day, they post: "Amazing turnout for yesterday's LinkedIn Live! So many great questions from the audience!"

Why it's annoying: Everyone can do basic math. When your replay has 12 views and you call it "amazing," you're either delusional or lying. Neither is a good look. The forced enthusiasm makes it worse. "So many great questions!" implies a flood of intellectual curiosity. The reality was one person asking "can you hear me?" and another asking if the recording would be available later (it won't be, because there's no reason to watch it twice).

What the data says: Live and event content is inconsistent in our data. The most-commented post in our entire dataset (2,369 comments) was a talk/event post, proving that the format CAN work spectacularly. But that's a massive outlier. The vast majority of LinkedIn Lives underperform text and image posts. Going live requires an existing audience, a compelling topic and promotion ahead of time. Without all three, you're talking to yourself on camera. Which is fine at home. Less fine as a content strategy.

What to do instead: Unless you already have an engaged audience waiting for live content, write a post instead. If you want to do video, record it, edit it and post the best 60-90 seconds as a native video. A polished clip outperforms a rambling live stream every time. You also get to edit out the part where you stared into the camera for 30 seconds waiting for someone to join.

Pro tip: If you're set on going live, build the audience first. Post about the topic for weeks. Gauge interest. Get people to commit in advance. A LinkedIn Live with a promoted, anticipated topic and 50 engaged viewers is great content. A LinkedIn Live you decided to do 20 minutes ago is a vlog for your mom.

6. Auto-DMs After Connecting

You accept a connection request. Within 30 seconds, you receive: "Thanks for connecting! I help [vague category] professionals [vague benefit]. Would you be open to a 15-minute call to discuss how I can help you [vague outcome]?"

Thirty seconds. That's less time than it takes to read their profile. Less time than it takes to form a genuine thought about another human being. But plenty of time for an automation tool to fire off a message that makes you regret accepting the connection.

Why it's annoying: It's the digital equivalent of someone shaking your hand and immediately trying to sell you a timeshare. The "connection" was never real. It was a lead-gen mechanism wearing a networking costume. And the message itself is always hilariously vague. "I help professionals achieve their goals." What goals? Whose goals? You don't know me. You don't know my goals. My goal right now is to disconnect from you.

The worst part is the timing. An instant DM tells you the person didn't connect to connect. They connected to sell. The speed is the confession.

What the data says: DM behavior doesn't show up in our post engagement data, but there's a related pattern. The best-performing creators in our dataset post consistently (Tuesday posts get 0.92% engagement rate, the highest of any day) and build audience relationships over time through valuable content. Cold DM strategies burn the very relationships that organic content is designed to build. You can grow through content or you can grow through spam. The data says content wins. And it wins by a lot.

What to do instead: If you want to build relationships with connections, engage with their content first. Comment on their posts for a few weeks. When you eventually reach out via DM, reference something specific they wrote. "Your post about X really stuck with me. I've been thinking about Y related to that." Real rapport takes longer. It also actually works. The connection-to-DM pipeline should have a minimum of two weeks in it, not two seconds.

Pro tip: If you're using an automation tool for DMs, at least customize the message enough that it doesn't feel automated. Better yet, don't use an automation tool for DMs. If you can't personally write a message to someone, you probably don't need to message them.

7. The "I'm Not Like Other CEOs" CEO Post

"Most CEOs eat lunch alone in their corner office. I eat in the break room with my team. Most CEOs fly first class. I fly economy. I'm not like most CEOs."

This is the professional equivalent of "I'm not like other girls." And it ages about as well.

Why it's annoying: It's a humble brag wrapped in false modesty. And it usually comes from someone who absolutely does have a corner office and does fly first class, but who ate lunch with the team once and is now mining the experience for content. The "I'm different" framing requires putting down every other leader in your category, which isn't humble at all. It's comparative vanity.

Also, your team knows you ate in the break room exactly once. They were there. They're reading this. They have thoughts.

What the data says: Entrepreneurship content averages 123 comments per post in our data, largely because founder stories provoke strong reactions. But the "I'm different" CEO posts tend to generate eye-rolls more than genuine engagement. The posts that actually perform well in this category are the ones admitting mistakes, sharing real numbers or describing specific decisions with real stakes. "I'm a nice CEO" is boring. "I made this specific call and here's why it was wrong" is interesting.

What to do instead: Show, don't tell. Instead of announcing how down-to-earth you are, share a specific situation where you made a decision that reflected your values. Describe the tradeoff. Acknowledge the complexity. Readers are smart enough to draw their own conclusions about what kind of leader you are. If you have to tell people you're humble, you're not.

Pro tip: Next time you're tempted to write an "I'm not like other CEOs" post, try this instead: describe a mistake you made as a leader, what it cost and what you changed. That takes actual courage. Writing "I fly economy" is not courage. It's a seating choice.

8. Tagging 30 People to Force Engagement

"Great conversation at today's event with @person1 @person2 @person3 @person4 @person5 @person6 ... [continues for three more lines]"

The post has more tags than words. Each tagged person gets a notification they didn't ask for, compelling them to either like the post out of social obligation or pretend they didn't see it. It's a hostage situation disguised as networking.

Why it's annoying: Mass-tagging is manipulation. You're hijacking other people's notifications to boost your post's visibility. Most of the tagged people didn't ask to be part of your content strategy. And the post itself usually has nothing to say beyond "I was at an event." The tags are doing all the work. The content is doing none.

There's also a subtle social pressure at play. When you tag someone publicly, they feel obligated to respond. Not because they care about the post, but because ignoring a public mention looks rude. You're essentially forcing engagement through guilt, which is the least sustainable growth strategy imaginable.

What the data says: While we don't track tag counts specifically, our data shows that posts with genuine engagement (meaningful comments from real connections) dramatically outperform posts with forced engagement signals. LinkedIn's algorithm has gotten better at distinguishing between authentic engagement and manufactured interactions. Tagging 30 people might get you 30 obligation likes, but it won't get you into the feed of anyone new. The algorithm can tell the difference between "people engaged because they wanted to" and "people engaged because they were summoned."

What to do instead: Tag 2-3 people maximum, and only when you're referencing something specific they said or contributed. "Had a fascinating disagreement with @person about X. She thinks [her view]. I think [your view]. Who's right?" That's worth a tag. A group photo with 30 tags is not.

Pro tip: Before tagging someone, ask: "Would this person be glad they were tagged, or annoyed?" If the answer is "annoyed" or "indifferent," don't tag them. A good rule of thumb: only tag someone if you're attributing a specific idea or contribution to them. "Great talking to @everyone" is never a valid reason.

9. The "Monday Motivation" Generic Quote

A stock image of a sunrise. Caption: "The only way to do great work is to love what you do. - Steve Jobs. Happy Monday, LinkedIn!"

Somewhere, a social media manager scheduled this post on Friday afternoon, went home and didn't think about it again. Which is exactly the energy it conveys.

Why it's annoying: You're posting someone else's words over someone else's image on a Monday morning when nobody wants to be on LinkedIn anyway. There is zero original contribution. A bot could do this. A bot probably did. And the "Happy Monday, LinkedIn!" sign-off is the cherry on top of a post that has all the personality of a hotel lobby.

The worst part: the quote is always by someone famous, which means your audience has already seen it 400 times. You're not introducing anyone to a new idea. You're reminding them of a quote they've been ignoring since 2014.

What the data says: Saturday posts get the lowest engagement in our data (0.46% engagement rate). Monday isn't much better. More importantly, generic motivational content without a personal angle consistently underperforms. The best-performing motivational posts in our dataset connect universal lessons to specific personal experiences. "Steve Jobs said X" is a quote. "I was about to quit my job last March. Here's what changed my mind" is a story. Stories win. Every time.

What to do instead: If a quote genuinely resonated with you, explain WHY. What happened in your week that made this particular quote hit different? The personal context is what turns a generic post into something people actually care about. Better yet: share your own original lesson. You don't need to borrow Steve Jobs' credibility. Your own experience is enough. And if your own experience isn't interesting enough to stand on its own, a Steve Jobs quote won't save it.

Pro tip: Delete any post from your drafts that contains a stock image and a famous person's quote. All of them. Start over with a blank page and a question: "What happened to me recently that someone else might learn from?" That's your Monday motivation.

Someone reposts a job listing, an article or another person's content. The only caption is "Sharing for visibility" or "This." or a single clapping emoji.

"Sharing for visibility" is the LinkedIn equivalent of "I saw this and had nothing to say about it, but I wanted you to know I saw it." It's performative awareness with zero substance.

Why it's annoying: If you have nothing to add, you're not sharing for visibility. You're filling your audience's feed with noise. The original post already exists. Reposting it without commentary doesn't help the original author (LinkedIn's algorithm favors original posts over reposts) and it doesn't help you. It does help nobody while mildly annoying everyone.

The single-word captions are especially grating. "This." What about this? What specifically? Why this and not the hundred other posts you scrolled past today? "This." is not a contribution to discourse. It's a pointing finger with no explanation attached.

What the data says: Our data focuses on original posts. There's a reason: reposts consistently underperform. LinkedIn's algorithm treats them as lower-priority content. The engagement gap between original content and reposts is significant. The median original post in our data gets 40 likes. Most reposts with no commentary get single digits. You'd get more engagement from a post about your lunch than from a repost with a clapping emoji.

What to do instead: If something is genuinely worth sharing, add 3-5 sentences explaining why. What's your take? What did you learn from it? Who specifically should read this and why? "This article by @person changed how I think about hiring. The section about X is especially relevant for founders scaling past 20 employees. Here's why..." Now you've created original content that happens to include a share. That's worth someone's time.

Pro tip: A good test: if the only thing you can think to write is "This." or "Sharing for visibility," you don't actually have a reason to share it. Save it for later when you do have something to say, or just appreciate it quietly and move on. Not everything needs to be broadcast. Sometimes the best content strategy is silence.

The Pattern Behind All Ten

Look at the list again. Every annoying behavior has the same root cause: taking shortcuts. Engagement bait instead of earning engagement. Mass-tagging instead of building relationships. AI-generated humility instead of genuine specificity. Reposts instead of original thought.

There's also a fear component. Most of these behaviors exist because the alternative, having an actual opinion and expressing it in your own voice, feels risky. What if people disagree? What if nobody engages? What if the post flops? So instead, people reach for the safe option: a poll, a quote, a repost, a "Thoughts?" with no thoughts.

The irony is that the safe option performs worse. The data is clear on this. The generic, low-risk content consistently underperforms the specific, opinionated content. Playing it safe isn't safe. It's invisible.

LinkedIn rewards effort. Not performative effort, not hustle-porn effort, but the genuine work of having something to say and saying it in your own voice. Our data is clear: the creators who consistently outperform are the ones who put real thought into every post.

The median LinkedIn post gets 40 likes and 8 comments. The top 1% gets 3,959+ likes. The gap between those two numbers is not explained by hacks, tricks or gaming the algorithm. It's explained by the quality of the content itself.

Pro tip: Pick one item from this list that you're guilty of. (We're all guilty of at least one. I've definitely done the screenshot-with-"Thoughts?" move. Not proud.) Commit to replacing it with a better practice for the next 30 days. Track whether your engagement changes. The data says it will.

If you want to be in the top tier, stop doing the ten things on this list. Start doing the things that actually work: share original perspectives backed by experience, engage authentically with your audience and be specific enough that nobody else could have written your post.

Tools like ViralBrain can help you study what top creators do differently, learning from real engagement data rather than recycling the same tired playbook that everyone else is already using.

Data sourced from ViralBrain's database of 10,222 LinkedIn posts across 494 creators.