📊 Meetvers Score Report #7

Collect this post and get your Meetvers score in the comments! 🔥

Meetvers score is our scoring system consisting of two profile components – active and passive. Active component is calculated out of posts, comments and mirrors. Passive component is based on the number of followers and collects.

Meetvers score formula also contains the engagement/influence premium based of the profile’s CFR and CPR 🚀 You can find the statistics for this week and the current leaderboard below 😎

Don’t forget to mirror, collect, and follow for more interesting reports!

Cheers! 💜

📊 Meetvers Score Report #6

Meetvers score is our scoring system consisting of two profile components – active and passive. Active component is calculated out of posts, comments, and mirrors. Passive component is based on the number of followers and collects.

Meetvers score formula also contains the engagement/influence premium based of the profile’s CFR and CPR 🚀 You can find the statistics for this week and the current leaderboard below 😎

Don’t forget to mirror, collect, and follow for more interesting reports!

Cheers! 💜

📊 Meetvers Score Report #5

Meetvers score is our scoring system consisting of two profile components – active and passive. Active component is calculated out of posts, comments, and mirrors. Passive component is based on the number of followers and collects.

Meetvers score formula also contains the engagement/influence premium based of the profile’s CFR and CPR 🚀 You can find the statistics for this week and the current leaderboard below 😎

Don’t forget to mirror, collect, and follow for more interesting reports!

Cheers! 💜

The Collectors of Promoted Collectible Posts: A Case Study by Meetvers

Recently, we‘ve discovered that posting on Lens Protocol without using the marketing tool @Wav3s.lens does not generate us enough engagement, even if our profile (@meetvers.lens) has a reasonable number of followers (as of writing this article, we had over 1 200 followers). We wouldn’t mind promoting our posts at all, but something caught our attention.

Despite publishing quite a few successful posts that generated a considerable volume in the past, and the service paid for by the collectors becoming more and more attractive (we hope!) in the present, the number of our paid collectors has significantly dropped.

For the purposes of this case study, we’ve decided to compare a free-to-collect post (A: meet-Cl-495; lenster.xyz/posts/0x98dd-0x01ef),,) and a paid-to-collect post (B: meet-Cl-91; lenster.xyz/posts/0x98dd-0x5b)..) Both posted via Wav3s using similar strategies.

Post A was just an announcement post about our trading cards collection being launched, there was no service tied to the free collect. Post B was collectible for 1 MATIC (100 limit), the collectors received a visual overview with 3 different scorings of their profiles.

There’s also another paid-to-collect post (C: meet-Cl-682; lenster.xyz/posts/0x98dd-0x02aa)) that, in our opinion, underperformed. We are curious as to why this post didn't follow up on the success of the announcement post, especially given that Lens Protocol users loved the idea of having their own personalized trading card – and this was an opportunity for everyone to get one. Additionally, the cost of collecting this post was ten times cheaper than collecting a successful post B (with just a visual overview).

Let’s get straight to the point and look who were the collectors of the posts A and B.

For complete comparison, a Lens Protocol user has in average (median) 92 (17) followers, 28 (5) posts, 26 (2) mirrors, 12 (2) comments. An average Meetvers score is 286, with the median of 40. An average number of collects per post is a little over 1, an average number of mirrors per post is 0.94. These metrics are obviously higher in case of the posts made with @Wav3s.lens.

In general, posts A, B, and C were posted via @Wav3s.lens using similar strategies. First 30 users with 130+ followers (150+ followers in case of post C; first 50 users in case of post B) were eligible for 0.1 WMATIC as a reward for mirroring one of these posts. This is the promoting strategy that is quite common across Lens Protocol nowadays, as we see.

Both posts A and B were liked 389-times, but post B destroyed post A regarding other statistics. Post B was commented 211-times (~100 comments were made by us), meanwhile Post A was commented only 21-times. Post B was mirrored 390-times (!!!), but post A was mirrored (only) 136-times. Post C got 109 likes, 5 comments, 60 mirrors, and 5 collects.

What was the reason behind the dominance of post B? And why was post C such a disappointment? Let’s dig deeper into the data about the collectors of posts A and B.

The set of profiles collecting post B has – in general – better statistics than the set of profiles collecting post A. We believe this was caused by bots that diluted the statistics of the latter set, because the collecting fee of 1 WMATIC effectively prevented these to collect post B, and thus make the averages pretty much the same for both posts.

As you can see, the Meetvers score of the collectors of post B is over 4-times higher than of those who collected post A (considering there was a limit of 100 collects for post B, it’s still an extraordinary difference). Even the median score is more than doubled, so it’s not really caused by more high-score profiles (up to 268 753 score points in the case of post B).

Higher Meetvers score implies higher follower counts as well. The collectors of post B have in average 3-times the followers of those who collected post A, and the median in case of post B is higher more than 3-times as well (surprisingly, the median of post B is even higher that the average number of followers per collector in case of post A).

Whether it is obvious or not, for the pay-to-collect post, the average amount of WMATIC held per collector is 2.8-times higher (8.322 WMATIC for our post with a collect fee of 1 WMATIC). It’s important to note that only about 40 % of the collectors of post A were able to collect post B, with their median amount of WMATIC being just 0.6.

The most surprising statistic pertains to the mirrors. While the average number of mirrors made by both sets is similar, the median for the free-to-collect post is almost double. This could suggest that the post was mirrored by profiles harvesting Wav3s, but this theory is not substantiated as we only considered the profile data of the collectors in this case study.

To wrap it up, post B generated much greater engagement in terms of quantifiable metrics, such as number of comments and mirrors. It was also collected (and often mirrored as well) by – statistically speaking – better profiles with high Meetvers score, thus generating higher engagement and – very possibly – a higher number of impressions.

This case study also shows how valuable indicator Meetvers score might be. Post B – which was in our eyes much successful – was able to surpass the median Meetvers score of the other post more than 2-times, and the average Meetvers score more than 3-times. This was also reflected in individual profile statistics.

We would like to hear your thoughts on the underperformance of post C. Do you believe that it was due to an overflow of similar posts at the time (qualitative), or a lack of attention from 'game-changing' profiles with high engagement and influence in the beginning (quantitative)?

Let's discuss it in the comments.

Cheers.

medium.com/@meetvers/the-collectors-of-promoted-collectible-posts-a-case-study-by-meetvers-c4525f851ffa