/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>another twitter thread

>>7163452
Art=Twitter it's Current Year get over it.

>>7163444
>Twitter has made updates to the algorithm to make it easier for smaller accounts to be seen
Like that will actually fix the underlying issue behind why most of us can't break past the 2k follower ceiling let alone the 1k follower ceiling.
>Be me
>Try and fail for years to build a sizeable following on social media as an artist
>Try being more active, doesn't work
>Try experimenting with my art, doesn't work
>Try drawing FotM waifus, doesn't work
>Try asking bigger accounts how they gre w their following, advice they give me doesn't work because it's the same goddamn shit I've already tried.
>Try asking bigger accounts for a retweet, just to get the ball rolling, even that doesn't work yet I see them retweeting other smaller artists no problem.
>Only people who give a rat fuck about me on Twitter at this point are the few Japanese artists who follow me as they always like and retweet my stuff no matter what.
If Elon couldn't get rid of the bot problem, what makes you think OP that he suddenly gives a damn about smaller accounts being more visible in people's timelines?

>>7163477
What you probably haven't tried is cheating and stop giving a shit.
Stop believing organic growth is still possible.
All the big accounts are plagued and boosted by bots, either random ones or self bought, or their discord friends, or they have some blue checkmarks boost them.
Most of them also regularly comment and involve themselves in "drama" and memes, so that's what most of their audience comes from and is there for.

Most don't realize that being an artist on social media is a failing endeavor; you should aim to be a ""content creator"", basically forfeiting art to feed slop and consumer product to genuine doomscrolling, illiterate, low iq retards craving validation in form of
>omg that's literally me fr fr
or
>omg that make my pp hard fr fr

Most retards would say
>ur work is bad
Which cannot be further from the truth when i personally experienced and have seen a lot shitty throwaway doodles and redraws do way more engagement and numbers than anything else.
Sometimes people boost these shitty posts on purpose to fuck with artists.

The critical issue, is the decadence of audiences and the extremely short shelf-life of anything on social media.
People are on social media for two reasons
>fuck shit up/trolling/baiting
>larping as social engineers
>jerk off and save porn pictures

In the end, you should realize that something like social media, must be played to extract money if you want to succeed at it.
Stop trying shit, set up shit to sell, and spam the ever living shit about you selling shit.
That's really it and that's what shitters give a shit about.

Still, the majority of your numbers will still be bots.

>>7163444
Because I'm picrel

>>7163501
Damn that meme is fucking real

It's not Twitter , it's x . Wow what a great name for a website.

>>7163444
Oh, is that why I constantly see some of the shittiest takes imaginable somehow getting upwards of 50K+ likes?

>>7163444
Because I don't give a fuck about "likes/followers".

>>7163444
this account has 11k followers to begin with lmfao how is that small

>>7163444
trend chasers are the same as those fat 50 year olds buying 12 lotto tickets at the grocery store thinking they have a chance

>>7163679
He allegedly had under 2k followers before he "blew up". Yeah fucking right, I don't doubt he had a smaller follower count until recently, but still, that could've been ME y'know? Fucking hate it when everybody but me got blessed by the ever-changing Twitter algorithm. It's why I said sayonara to Twitter and moved on to Pixiv where I've gone from under 350 followers to over 810 since the Holiday season. Even at my most active on Twitter, I never did numbers like that. None of my posts went viral. NONE OF THEM no matter how hard I worked on a given piece. Oh, but Joe Schmoe gets to go viral, THEY get to have their following explode overnight? Fuck that unfair bullshit! If I was Elon Musk, I'd expose the algorithm and how exactly it works so that anybody could go viral no matter what.

>>7163683
pyw

>>7163679
anon, he was at 4k followers before his post blew up.

>>7163444
No the current trend is the lemon trend

>>7163477
>Try and fail for years to build a sizeable following on social media as an artist
What is/was your strategy? And what did you post? This is important because something I noticed from anons at the self promo thread is a lack of content and consistency. You may be missing that "hook" that makes people stick with you. Remember you have to give people a reason to follow you.
>Try being more active, doesn't work
Being active only helps you from getting drowned by the algorithm due to account inactivity, think of it as a combo chain.
>Try drawing FotM waifus, doesn't work
One-time-things barely ever work unless you hit the big numbers and get a lot of follows because of it. And even so you wont get engagement from them if you move on from that FotM because you're not posting what people followed you for.
>Try asking bigger accounts how they gre w their following
In truth not many people know how it happened, it just does eventually due to either followers growing in multiplier or several posts of the same content keeping people engaged. I know a lot of small artists that got big because of this and Im pretty sure they dont know what happened, it just happened.
>Try asking bigger accounts for a retweet
Never do this, not for any objective reason, it's just a matter of ethics. You'd rather get people retweet you on their own by appealing to them. I had a friend that was eager to RT me when I asked, and it didnt feel any less wrong because of it.
>Only people who give a rat fuck about me on Twitter at this point are the few Japanese artists who follow me as they always like and retweet my stuff no matter what.
The japanese are chill, stick with them and try to appease to more japanese users, specially those with big numbers.

>>7163741
>also
This anon here >>7163501 is right in only two points:
1. When it comes to the social media game, you have to treat yourself as a brand, or a content creator as he calls it. You are not supposed to be "some guy that draws", you are supposed to be "the guy that draws this thing I like".
And there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion, getting into a niche and trying to appeal to people in said niche is a very common thing in humanity, social media isnt any different in this regard, you dont need to sell your soul or "forfeit art to feed slop and consumer product", you can be as artistic as you want as long as you remember that, when it comes to social media, you are a brand that needs to appeal to a market.
2. When it comes to the social media game, you REALLY dont need to bang your skull against the wall for it, so dont give it too much thought, some things happen by sheer luck, some things are going to be slow, some things are not going to make sense... so best you can do is loosen up, stop caring so much and just let things flow their own way.

Everything else? It's wrong. You dont need to farm bots (just numbers and no engagement), you DEFINITELY dont have to get into drama (meaningful followers will immediately turn their backs on you if you do because they find drama rightfully obnoxious) and you dont have to reduce your art to mere dopamine opium to the masses. You can still be as genuine as you want and get somewhere like this; it takes time, obviously, but it brings good things in the long term it's worth giving it a shot if you feel compelled to go the long way, you just have to remember what keys to press in order to actually move forward. This is what organic growth is all about.

>>7163741
>>7163756
Anon, how the hell can anybody compete on Twitter in 2024 without paying their way to success or sucking off the right people? Organic growth died years ago and anybody who claims otherwise is lying or they're about to sell you on some 'Build an Organic Twitter following in record time" course that doesn't actually work the way they claim it does.

>>7163785
>Anon, how the hell can anybody compete-
And that's where the whole argument you set up falls apart. The social media game is not a competition, for your progress is not being impeded by anyone, nor your progress impedes anyone else's. You are merely a content creator, a contributor to a market who's only real impediment is how much visibility you have in said market, visibility that no other artist is taking away from you.

You could make the argument that you are competing over attention spans, but even so you'd be opening a whole can of worms about human psychology that has the potential to go full roundabout into the argument of "your art is not good enough for people to like it", which essentially proves right some of the points I mentioned earlier.
You could also make the argument that the more artists there are to a niche, the less chances there are for small artists to make their way up, but this is more applicable to small communities than the field of social media, proven right by the fact you can search for the "Princess Peach" hashtag on twitter, check "recent posts" and find a mixture of big and (mostly) small artists with varying feedback results; so you are still being seen, so the "competition" doesnt apply either.

>Organic growth died years ago and-
What even is "Organic growth" to you guys anyway? Cause I swear it seems like you guys believe you SHOULD be getting followers and engagement just for posting tasteless doodles without putting any kind of effort into being seen whatsoever. That's not how it works, that's not how it ever worked.
Social media nowadays is bigger than it used to be and that makes visibility harder, sure, but that doesnt mean you cant make your way around it without resorting through shady methods, you just have to put some effort to it.

>>7163816
You are making too much sense for this shithole of crabs and schizos

>>7163816
>but that doesnt mean you cant make your way around it without resorting through shady methods, you just have to put some effort to it.
Sorry, can't hear you. Paying for botted engagement as we speak. Games rigged and if you can't beat them, join them.

>>7163501
>What you probably haven't tried is cheating and stop giving a shit.
>Stop believing organic growth is still possible.
>All the big accounts are plagued and boosted by bots, either random ones or self bought, or their discord friends, or they have some blue checkmarks boost them.
>Most of them also regularly comment and involve themselves in "drama" and memes, so that's what most of their audience comes from and is there for.

>>7163847
Now everybody knows and draws this schmuck but only for that one time somebody big made fun of his whine comic.

>>7163850
And all /ic/ crabs can do is cope. It has nothing to do with luck of the draw, you're not popular because your art just sucks, simple as that. We'll be nice to you so we don't look like the asshole, but deep down you just aren't good enough to play with the big boys.

>>7163444
Because it doesnt work. Only retweeting and posting your stuff to communities everyday works.

Why not just draw.

>>7163680
This

This artist has nearly 100,000 followers, skill means shit.

>>7163785
Ive gotten 120 followers in three months without bots, trend chasing, or posting faggy artmoot hashtags to trick people into following me. Organic growth is entirely possible.

>>7163877
>regularly draws fanart of people more popular than him in order to get retweets from these artists
>b-b-but getting retweeted by a big artist wont help
just pander to big artists by drawing their oc or things they like

>>7163854
>because i appeal to the lowest of the lowest of the denominators and people like the thing i do because it does appeal to the lowest of the lowest common denominator, this makes me more skilled and superior than of those who don't and i am a big boy
>meanwhile >>7163877
Do pornfags really?

>>7163877
But this guy is clearly skilled

>7164388
Shit bait.

>>7163477
been seeing a lot more smaller accounts blowing up lately, pic rel had like 4k followers and shot up to 11k+ follwers.

>>7163854
If you're gonna say this shit at least pick a better artist to justify your point.
Unless you're baiting which is also likely

>>7163444
>Why aren’t you doing this new trend
I don't care about trends.

>>7163816
>your progress is not being impeded by anyone, nor your progress impedes anyone else's.
The total sum of time people browsing the site have is limited. Every second spent on your stuff is a second they'll potentially not spend on other people's stuff and vice versa.

>>7164726
>The total sum of time people browsing the site have is limited.
This is an outright lie and you know it, people sink way too much time in social media these days. Psychologically speaking, social media is a constant chemical rush that always gets you craving to engage in one more piece of it, whether it's a video, an image or some kind of drama. Actually stopping to engage in social media is an action that most humans do by thoughtful choice, while remaining in the engagement is something that is done unconsciously, needless to say the former takes so much more effort to execute than the latter.
And even if the contrary were the case by some kind of cosmic bullshit, still wouldnt count as an argument in favor of artists taking away engagement from each other because there is no logical scenario in which someone goes to social media minding their limited time and then actively choose to engage with a selected few artists they like as opposed to just scrolling through their feed to see whatever the algorithm has selected for them (which includes the artists they like).
Contrary to what you may think, your argument actually supports the fact that your only real impediment is how visible you are, which is not caused by other artists, but the site's algorithm.

>inb4 "didnt read lol"
People's time in social media is NOT limited and even if it was, it only supports my point that your visibility is the real impediment, not other artists.

>>7164763
>still wouldnt count as an argument in favor of artists taking away engagement from each other
Anon, why do you go so hard out your way to make this strawman for the nth time?

There is no implication that artists are taking away numbers from each other, the issue is much more broad as it has to do with
>algorithm
>quantity of posts

The only point to your posts is really just trying to lowkey insult people
>hehe if u ain't get numbas guess what.... U SUCK!!! epic troll!!!!! checkmate!!! gottem!! wahoo!

As people have limited reach due to various factors OUTSIDE OF THEIR CONTROL, so do users have limited exposure due to algorithmic and individual limitations.
Or do you really unironically believe that everyone who uses social media is on it 24/7 scrolling through each individual post and making sure it fits their own very specific criteria to even acknowledge its existence to then press like?
Anon, the average retard just doomscrolls for five minutes, sees pic that gets his pp hard, likes and keeps doomscrolling.

You are basically asking the dumb as fuck consumer who just wants to see pretty pictures and get his dopamine firing, to actually curate his own social media viewing and that's like asking a porn addict to not like every porn he comes across.

>>7164858
>and that's like asking a porn addict to not like every porn he comes across.
nta, but that does actually happen during late stage porn addiction. The initial and middle stages are characterized by mindless consumption ("whatever will do,") but once the dopamine balance has tilted far enough out of wack, they seek out very exacting, precise and hardcore material to fulfill their needs, and will dismiss and ignore mountains upon mountains upon mountains of porn to find "the one." These are the "deep divers" of the porn addled, and there's a market that caters specifically to them. Niche fetishism with niches within niches, down to the most obscure and extreme.

It's the same with drugs. Hardcore junkies don't just go for whatever is available, they're hardened to it, bored of it, sick of it. They go for the hardest shit they can find, even if it means having to jump through endless hoops to get at it.

Just saying. Got no horse in this race.

>>7164858
>Inb4 more shitty strawmen and semantics
Are you expecting the average consumer to go out their way and find specific posts on Xitter?
99% of xitter users gobble up what they get recommended, and that is based on their recent likes and users they follow and what those users like, as well.
So, it isn't that strange that if someone goes on a furry porn liking spree and you recently happen to follow them, that you start getting those posts recommended.
The algorithmic functions on xitter is much more threaded like a peer2peer network, than truly boosting posts depending on their raw engagement.

This is nothing anyone can control by themselves alone, but this can be gamed if you have your own army of discord kiddies or bots.
So, we already have people cheating the system, which doesn't make the system work as it is suppossed to, which loosely can be argued as
>taking away engagement from others
because if people cheat to boost their posts, then other posts will clearly be ignored to prioritize the cheated posts. It's not like the algorithm tells the difference between botted posts and organic engagement; it always favors the post with more numbers.

Any argument or trivialization falls apart the instant you realize what the average consumer likes and shares on xitter and what they engage with; Drama and Porn.

>>7164858
>why do you go so hard out your way to make this strawman-
What strawman? At what point did I make a caricature of an argument for the sake of proving it wrong? I merely proved you wrong using arguments based on logical inferences such as the fact no one that has limited time on social media actively targets specific content to engage with when checking their feed will not only show them the content they want already, but it takes less effort to do so which is valuable when time is limited.
Do you even know what a strawman is?

>There is no implication that artists are taking away numbers from each other, the issue is much more broa as it has to do with algorithm and quantity of posts
Anon that is literally what I said two posts ago and what my whole point is all about.
>>7163816 (Me)
>your progress is not being impeded by anyone, nor your progress impedes anyone else's. You are merely a content creator, a contributor to a market who's only real impediment is how much visibility you have in said market, visibility that no other artist is taking away from you.

>The only point to your posts is really just trying to lowkey insult people
>>hehe if u ain't get numbas guess what.... U SUCK!!!
At no given moment I even implied quality or skill have anything to do with social media engagement. The closest thing to that argument I said was three posts ago and even then I was explicitly referring to that one subjective element that makes people eager to see more of the content you provide, said element having more to do with said content and your consistency with it.
>>7163741 (Me)
>I noticed from anons at the self promo thread is a lack of content and consistency. You may be missing that "hook" that makes people stick with you. Remember you have to give people a reason to follow you.
I dont know where you're getting that incorrect assumption of my point from.

As for the latter half of the post... character limit is making me consider I should reply to it.

>>7164880
>late stage addiction
If it even comes that far, but how people use social media on average, it keeps them in a constant state of novelty.
Basically, the perfect addict since he will just gobble up anything.

To get to late stage, you really have to knock yourself out and become conscious of what you like.
Even then, they still take what's available to them.
Junkies won't stop doing lower drugs because they're more resistant to it.
Sane as alcoholics who will just drink more beer if the hard stuff isn't there.

So basically:

Get good
Find niche
Bot for numbers

>>7164858
Fuck it.
>Or do you really unironically believe that everyone who uses social media is on it 24/7 scrolling through each individual post and making sure it fits their own very specific criteria to even acknowledge its existence to then press like?
Yes and Yes. Because for the second part: That's how the algorithm works; in a nutshell, your interactions in a platform define what content you will see, if you like and follow artists that like trains, chances are you will see more train art in your feed, it's that simple.
As for the first part: I have a handful of sightings from all sorts of places and people where they have sunk their time endlessly scrolling through TikTok, Instagram, Whatsapp and Facebook. I also have experiences of my own where I have studies this phenomena applying and logic and common sense, as well spoken to people on the subject, so Im more than certain on the fact that people DO spend way too much time in social media for time to be a limited resource.

>Anon, the average retard just doomscrolls for five minutes, sees pic that gets his pp hard, likes and keeps doomscrolling.
Im beginning to think you misunderstood the entirety of what I was talking about... because I also did not imply this at any given point. In fact this is literally what Im referring to when I said people would rather check their feed as opposed to go to specific content when the algorithm has already been set up to give them the content they want to see.
>You are basically asking the dumb as fuck consumer who just wants to see pretty pictures and get his dopamine firing, to actually curate his own social media viewing-
Again, not the point I was making. Did you even read it...?

>>7164893
Kinda.
Yes.
No.
I find the bot argument funny because if farming bots were a viable strategy, you wouldnt be seeing so many bitter people in this board complaining about social media, instead they'd be bragging about this juicy exploit and telling others about their big numbers.

>>7164897
>because I also did not imply this at any given point.
>because I did not imply *OTHERWISE* at any given point.
Fixed. Dammit, there goes my argument lmao.

>>7164883
>at what point
You literally read
>competition
and went on to twist everything to provide your own argument
>no one has limited time because i say so
Everything you say is proven wrong by HOW people use social media.
>Anon that is literally what I said two posts ago and what my whole point is all about.
And you missed the point either on purpose or because you're illiterate.

Limited time is relative to how people use social media
>they open app
>scroll 5 minutes
>see pretty pic
>like and do shit
>close the app
They don't autistically curate their own experience for hours on end, like you heavily want to imply.
>>7164897
>he believes people are on it legit 24/7 and sporadically a couple minutes braindead scrolling through content
>misses the entire point that you can cheat the system which results in fucking up other people's posts and it has been done long enough that the whole system is rotten
And there you go.

You are a fucking retard. Unironically.

>bots aren't real because then everyone on this baord who are """""""bitter""""""" would go on to give their credit card information to pajeets and scammers
Underage as well
holy fuck

>>7164763
>>The total sum of time people browsing the site have is limited.
>This is an outright lie and you know it,
So you're saying the userbase of Xitter have literally unlimited time every day?
Assuming you don't literally think so, then:
>Actually stopping to engage in social media is an action that most humans do by thoughtful choice
Defeats your later point:
>your visibility is the real impediment, not other artists.
And what is the ultimate bottleneck of visibility if not the fact that the users have to "stop and engage", which takes time?
No matter how you slice it, if a given person only has time to view the work of five artists and six artists have published their work, it is impossible for every artist out of those six to be seen.

Remember guys; if you question the legitimacy of big accounts; you are bitter.
And if you prove that you can buy bots to boost your account, you're lying and no one does that and you're just jealous.
And if you start counting for bots in every big account, you're a schizo and a stalker.
Twitter prior Musk used bots to boost brand and politician accounts and it was also stated in the contracts they did that with those accounts to give them the illusion of legitimacy and help the site achieve more relevancy because if the government/brand account has billions of followers that means they're actually important and people will make an account? Clearly not true.

Because if that were the case, everyone would be botting which would totally have no consequences like we're experiencing now.

Bots on twitter are exactly like discord trannies; they don't exist and if you say so you are a schizo.

btw i have 10 gorillion followers so you now must agree with me and worship me and give me money
>inb4 not true
hehe ur just jealous and bitter

>>7164902
>You literally read competition and went on to twist everything to provide your own argument
Because the initial argument is based on the foundation that social media is a competition, which renders it completely unusable once you prove that one aspect wrong. I didnt twist anything.
>Everything you say is proven wrong by HOW people use social media.
>Limited time is relative to how people use social media
Just yesterday I was on a bus with three women scrolling through their phones on different social medias for the whole duration of the trip (roughly 45 minutes). When I got to work as a freelance technician I always see at least one person in the household we're working at endlessly scrolling through their phones or watching videos for the duration of the work (1-2 hours). Commonly you see images and videos about people endlessly wasting time in social media, so much so that it has become a meme.
So I have all the reasons to believe what you're saying about "time being a limited resource" and "people only spend so much time in social media" to be not only incorrect, but also disingenuous.
>They don't autistically curate their own experience for hours on end, like you heavily want to imply.
Of course they dont, the algorithm does it for them. I explained it like THREE FUCKING TIMES, are you even reading or are you reading what you want to read??
>>he believes people are on it legit 24/7-
Already explained it.
>>misses the entire point that you can cheat the system-
Unrelated to the point at hand and proven wrong by the fact you can still see artists, big and small, if you bother to check the "recent posts" tab on a tag of your liking. I dont think bots are an uncertainty, but I do believe you guys are twisting a lot of stuff surrounding bot usage and how it affects people's feeds.

And since you're resorting to insults and greentexting, Im going to stop (You)ing, feel free to believe you won some kind of internet fight.

>>7164920
this unironically, if you're too retarded to play the "system" then don't complain or bitch. Either play the game or quit drawing, shitter.

>>7163444
I'm so fucking glad I sell my art conventions exclusively. Anytime I think "I hate driving" or "fuck airplanes," I come here, see one of these threads, and am instantly reminded that the "ease" of social media and the internet is, was, and will always be a huge deception.

>>7164927
>bb-b-b-ut he literally said cumpetishon!
>anecdotes and shallow observations at best
>therefore a sample size of 5 people is direct evidence of how millions behave
>anything that doesn't validate my bad faith or straight up low iq argument is unrelated and is proven wrong--- because i say so!
>waaah insult and greentext bad! but not when i do it
>waaaaaag don't think you won an internet fight!!!
Absolutely fucking retarded

>>7164906
>So you're saying the userbase of Xitter have literally unlimited time every day?
Not only on xwitter, but in all social medias, people do spend a lot of time in social media after all, so much so time isnt really that precious to these people.
>>Actually stopping to engage in social media is an action that most humans do by thoughtful choice
>Defeats your later point:
>>your visibility is the real impediment, not other artists.
Those points are not related to each other, though.
The former is just an explanation on how people make the conscious choice to hop off social media, which takes some mental energy, and how remaining in the engagement of social media is an unconscious action that doesnt take mental energy.
The latter is implying that the amount of visibility you have in people's feeds determines how well you perform in social media and how artists have nothing to do with said performance.

>And what is the ultimate bottleneck of visibility if not the fact that the users have to "stop and engage", which takes time?
I already explained how those points are not related, but to answer your question: The algorithm screwing you over is the true bottleneck of visibility.
And I say this as a small artist that has had his fair shares of blessings of visibility due to either big accounts RTing my works or just using the right tags. You realize that, if your art is decent enough and you provide to a niche, it all goes down to how easily people can see you, which is something you are at the mercy of the algorithm.

>if a given person only has time to view the work of five artists and six artists have published their work, it is impossible for every artist out of those six to be seen.
True, but that doesnt mean the artists are the ones to blame for your lack of visibility. In this hypothetical case it's just the algorithm putting you behind and/or the viewer not bothering to see further.

i want off this ride

>>7164991
post either your work or your blog, let me see if I can give you some insight

>>7165004
i post it here all the time, its just horny gay stuff don't want to fingerprint myself more than I already have.

>>7164991
i have hundreds of views but no engagement at all

>>7164991
>>7165110
Mine is a little mixed up, it depends a lot on hashtags and subject, some of these are very low effort, while others (mostly the self RTd ones) are high effort.

>>7165136
>19 million
>235 likes

I'd just delete my account at that point.

>>7165136
to be fair, i also block and remove spam and bot accounts from my followers
and i also either might be shadowbanned or deboosted because i click on those profiles and hidden replies to block bot and pussyinbio accounts

When i started i usually got a lot of engagement but about one month ago, everything i posted suddenly made views but no engagement at all
Tried checking my followers and removed a couple bots, then still nothing, deleted everything and now every post gets no engagement, despite doing pretty good on other sites.

pic related were my highest
others did around 10 likes and a couple rts

i mean, fuck, i got a notification about a like from a profile that usually liked a lot of my stuff but then it wasn't there the next day
he fucking unliked it

i dunno, maybe that niche might be genuinely avoiding/ignoring or fucking with me for some genuinely insane reason
Mostly because that fandom is quite insane

>>7165155
btw both of those post were extremely low effort drawings

>>7165153
Kek, the "mil" stands for "thousand" in spic language, you silly.

>>7165155
To be fair, I wouldnt pay too much attention to the statistics tab, specially when your numbers are quite low, you're only going to be banging your head against the wall. A lot of the technicalities of how followers and engagement happens is something you really dont need to get too into in order to break through.
>i dunno, maybe that niche might be genuinely avoiding/ignoring or fucking with me for some genuinely insane reason
Have you tried using tags? Keep in mind you're going to have better luck using active hashtags and only a very few, like three maximum. You could also try and look at your niche elsewhere, like Discord servers, other social medias or even other boards here at 4chan.
And if you're suspecting you're shadowbanned, you can always check for yourself here:
>https://shadowban.yuzurisa.com
As far as I know, Twitter doesnt like it when you dont mark your content as NSFW when it is, so if you happen to be shadowbanned, it could be because of it, but Im only speculating.

>>7165136
How do you get millions of people view your stuff?

>>7165187
I use tags and as i said; i didn't have any issues up until a few weeks ago.
Also, yes, i guess i am (still) shadow/ghostbanned after checking right now, but i've been apparently ghostbanned longer than that and it didn't influence anything
>i wouldn't check the stats when numbers are low
That's really average for that niche and for what i draw that i can pay attention to the stats. I don't do nsfw.

Like i dunno man, it's just weird.
But it's really just twitter.
On tumblr and pixiv i do alright numbers, but twitter is compretery dead for me.
>try looking for you niche elsewhere
Most of the activity is on twitter anyway, rather than in closed communities.
The 4chan general is mildly dead or simply a twitter extension, too.

>>7165211
do tags actually do anything

>>7165190
I said "mil" stands for "thousand" in spic language!

>>7165215
They do, but on twitter you have to use the correct ones and not something generic
Like if you post fanart, you obvious use the name as hashtag, but generic ones don't really do lots of traction.
If i post without hashtags, i barely break a couple views.

If you would be in a nsfw niche, you should use the tags of your fetish or something, but i would theorize that if you would couple your nsfw work with fanart of current shows, it would do way better than just gambling on anything else.
Art on twitter i would say is really just more about fanart than anything else.

>>7165218
it could be french or italian for all you know

>>7165211
I dont know, man, I still think you're thinking too much about it. Like I mentioned earlier, some things in the social media game just dont make sense, so best you can do is not give it too much thought. Still, it's weird indeed, at least you're still doing somewhat good elsewhere.
>The 4chan general is mildly dead
Kek, same for the general I visit. While it doesnt translate to more engagement in social media, it does feel nice to belong to a very small community of anons in 4chan and be well regarded for contributing to that community.

>>7165215
Yes, but they are tricky to use. For one, you have to be sure to use hashtags that are active and used regularly, you cant use too many tags either, I'd say three max. Using tags wrong seems to have a backwards effect on your posts by sending you down by the algorithm. While the technicalities are tricky, using tags really pays off, I've recently been using japanese tags and they sure do wonders.

>>7165221
Im telling you, Im a spanish speaking spic lmao. I know it isnt italian what Im reading at twitter, let alone french.

>>7165236
It's not that i think too much about it, but it should have some logic behind it.
I can pretty much asses what i am not doing/doing wrong on the art side as to why i might be not doing bigger numbers and that's mostly my fun in it, but otherwise it does feel like trying to knead stale bread.

>>7165215
it works, it just depends on what's trending right now. when a certain flavor of the month is trending use hashtags related to it.

>>7163877
he’s popular because he’s a retarded minority that sucks up to big artists which makes the big artists salivate from the idea of getting good boy points from supporting him

>>7165219
>If you would be in a nsfw niche
Elon Musk has made it so that nsfw accounts are actively suppressed. The For You tab only shows nsfw from people you follow or retweets from people you follow, it wont ever suggest an nsfw post or an nsfw account to follow.
Oddly enough nsfw shows up from searches for the time being if you have nsfw set. So maybe make sure to mention a very few pointed keywords without resorting to hashtag spamming. But either way there has never been a better time to be an nsfw "big account" on twitter, since Musk has prevented anyone from competing with all the proverbial ladders pulled up. The only nsfw accounts these days with traction are AI spammers that can spam their way to the top and even then Ive never seen one get more than 2-3k followers in a short period.

>>7165359
>schizoid delusion
Meanwhile, reality:
>>7163877

>>7165361
>the account is from 2018
>Musk didn't take over twitter (and implement NSFW suppression) until 2022
thanks for proving my point, again twitter/x is great for any shitty NSFW account that managed to get their followers before musk took over, like taking the last helicopter out of saigon

>>7165359
Unironically blame OF whores for this.
>pay blue checkmark for advertising your account to a bunch of kids to sell porn
>spam/porn bots and more OF whores also congregate
>every other OF whore does this
>there are dedicated blue checkmarks accounts just running ads for these whores
>shit gets bad
>nsfw art gets caught in the crossfire
>meanwhile OF whores accounts keep spamming everywhere
I lost track of how many times there are tweets about videogames being spammed by OF whores unironically spamming the most brain dead shit ever like cope and seethe and other buzzwords

Rage and engagement bait is entirely on them as well, and not even Xitter does anything about it because they drive more traffic than any pornfag or aislopper would dream of

>>7165359
hows bluesky, seems like FA is still the most democratic platform to gain a following on.

>>7163444
>Easy likes/followers
here's your followers bro

>>7163477
going through 500 without having to play the follow-back game, without having to rely on trends, and without doing coom is quite a challenge already...

>>7163683
>If I was Elon Musk, I'd expose the algorithm and how exactly it works so that anybody could go viral no matter what.
There are online summaries of the code.

At the end of the day, you can't beat luck either. Also, some things just take time.

>>7165435
Jack Dorsey recently stepped down from Bsky and they've implemented somekind of automod AI bot that's kind of sus. So far it's better than twitter but it doesn't have the critical mass yet. I could see it doing something really stupid down the line.

>>7163477
>All this algorithm gaming
Has it ever occured to you that your art just isn't good?
I don't understand why you guys spend so much time focusing on this instead of just getting better.
If you have good art people will come.

>>7167870
>If you have good art people will come.
Pic related has over 100k followers.

>>7167884
i love how anti lolishota fags like calling people pedos then go and jerk off to this shit

>>7167884
It always baffles me how idiots in this board try to get a gotcha out of an artist that clearly has a more-than-decent grasp at fundamentals and appeal regardless of one or two questionable design choices.

Like, sure the asses and the whole setup is stupid, but those aside: Colors are well put together, composition is readable, anatomy is well done, same for the expressions... The piece is not fundamentally broken by any means...

Next time at the very least get something that is genuinely abhorrent and eye-soring, like one of those Deviantart trash fire accounts.

>>7167993
I get you're a coping retarded /beg/ with shit taste. You being blinded by the truth, doesn't make it less true, also look up @kujikawaii I can easily name hundreds if I wanted to.

>>7168009

>>7163477
PYW seething failure anon, I want to see it

>>7165136
>2 retweets 15 likes
Dammn wtf is wrong with my like retweet ratio

>>7163477
Have you considered a different career path?

>>7163477
I dont mean to sound rude, but this tends to be an art problem. Plenty of the big people I follow are (of course) better than me at art. So when they see my piece, I need to impress them or make them laugh into making them see it as worthwhile to sponsor my post, essentially.

If my skill level or joke expressed in a piece is something that they wont blick twice at, then how could I, in good faith, expect massive engagement. Ive dealt with low follower hell, im technically still there but when I got better, I got more followers, simple as. Become good enough that you impress big artists.

>>7163847
Waga said it and i agree. Either draw the popular characters, or you better have a damn good OC.

>>7168209
On average, also when rounded too:

10% of views should be likes. 10% of likes should be retweets and expected followers.

>>7163592
being a girl on the internet is absolutely life on easy mode

>>7168209
damn, that must suck.

>>7168918
Not anymore

>>7168889
>some mexican popufur said it and i agree

>>7165359
I've seen a ai acount with over 20k followers in a few months

>>7163444
Are bots counted as veiws?

speaking of trends
>new character gets revealed
>1 hour later
>several fully illustrated pieces of fan art that get every detail right
how people do this so fast... I can't draw a character with just a blurry little gameplay video as the only reference. I need ultra clear large pictures in all angles and then I have to look for the perfect dynamic original pose and perfect composition

>>7169322
the cynic in me says some of these clout chasers essentially have ych styled templates with the basics rendered so all they have to do is color/edit a few things when a fotm character pops up

>>7163477
Maybe your art isn't appealing looking in the first place

>>7167993
They think because its a gross fetish that the art is automatically bad. They don't think about fundamentals or composition or things like that, they just want to send a message and believe that since their message is good, their art should be popular. Thats why they post some fucked up porn that is well drawn.