The LinkedIn Algorithm Dilemma: Short Posts with Links vs. Long Articles Without Them

I’ve spent a lot of time experimenting with different ways to share ideas on LinkedIn, and one thing has become abundantly clear: the platform rewards certain behaviors and punishes others. It’s a frustrating reality for anyone who wants to write thoughtful, link-heavy content but also hopes for visibility.

When I write a short post with a link—say, a concise summary of a great article or a useful resource—the engagement is often abysmal. LinkedIn’s algorithm doesn’t like external links. It’s as if the platform detects the moment you try to send people elsewhere and promptly buries your post. To work around this, some people put links in the comments, but even that seems to be hit or miss.

On the other hand, when I write a longer article that stays entirely within LinkedIn—no links, no attempts to drive traffic elsewhere—it tends to perform better. People actually read it, comment on it, and share it. The algorithm seems to favor keeping users engaged on the platform rather than letting them wander off to another site. This makes sense from LinkedIn’s perspective, but it’s frustrating when I want to reference sources, share external insights, or point readers toward something valuable beyond the platform’s walled garden.

The result is a strategic tradeoff. If I want reach, I write longer, self-contained pieces with no links. If I care more about directing people to a specific resource, I accept that fewer people will see it and hope that those who do are the right ones. It feels like an odd choice to have to make—engagement versus information-sharing—but that’s the game.

So, what’s the solution? For me, it’s a mix. I still share links when I need to, but I also write deeper, link-free pieces that live entirely within LinkedIn’s ecosystem. I don’t love the compromise, but at least I know the rules. And in a world where platforms dictate visibility, understanding those rules is half the battle.