we read the guides. followed the experts. did the E-E-A-T dance. added "emotional beats at strategic intervals" like some robot trying to feel.
we studied what performs on google discover. analyzed headlines. learned the patterns. reverse-engineered success.
we built a content calendar like adults.
then we tracked everything.
the 37.8x problem
we published 6 articles over the same period. three were planned, optimized, strategized. three were frustrated rants we wrote because something pissed us off.
heres what happened:
type | sessions | readers | deep reads |
|---|---|---|---|
unplanned rants | 13,112 | 7,858 | 6,295 |
planned content | 347 | 322 | 153 |
thats a 37.8x gap.
not 2x. not 5x. thirty-seven point eight times more sessions from content we didnt plan.
the article-by-article breakdown
article | approach | sessions | deep reads |
|---|---|---|---|
vibe coding has a 12x cost problem | frustrated, one sitting | 11,596 | 5,620 |
no more ads revenue? google keeps 90% now | researched, sourced | 991 | 421 |
dead workplace theory: 75% use AI emails | controversial take | 525 | 254 |
3,800 of you read the 12x piece | strategic timing | 133 | 57 |
the success theater economy: fake SaaS founders | planned | 111 | 61 |
i spent 3 years chasing backlinks the wrong way | optimized for weeks | 103 | 35 |
the backlinks article took the longest. we researched google discover requirements. read case studies. studied what performs.
first-person narrative title.
named sources.
author byline.
strategic internal linking.
cited backlinko, authority hacker, editorial-link
proper E-E-A-T signals.
a nice little sources section at the bottom so google knows were serious people.
103 sessions.
the vibe coding rant? techwizardrino was annoyed about a tweet. he did some rough math. published it without overthinking.
11,596 sessions.
thats 112.6x.
the rant got 112 times more traffic than the article we optimized for weeks.
site share
this is the part that made us stare at the screen for a while.
unplanned content: 65.1% of total site traffic
planned content: 1.7% of total site traffic
three articles we didnt think about captured 65% of everything.
three articles we strategized over captured less than 2%.
the binary engagement pattern
we expected a normal distribution. some people skim for 30 seconds. some read for 2 minutes. some finish the whole thing.
thats not what happened.
time spent | unplanned | planned |
|---|---|---|
<10 seconds (bounce) | 52.0% | 55.9% |
10-30 seconds | 0% | 0% |
30-60 seconds | 0% | 0% |
1-2 minutes | 0% | 0% |
2-5 minutes | 0% | 0% |
5+ minutes (deep read) | 48.0% | 44.1% |
nothing in between.
people either left immediately or stayed for the whole thing. no skimmers. no partial readers. binary.
the rants had slightly better retention. but the real difference is absolute numbers. 6,295 deep reads on unplanned content. 153 on planned.
41.1x more people actually read the rants.
velocity
sessions per day, averaged over each articles lifespan:
article | sessions/day |
|---|---|
vibe coding rant | 136 |
dead workplace theory | 131 |
backlinks guide | 52 |
success theater | 37 |
the rant sustained 3.7x higher daily velocity than our most optimized piece.
planned content didnt just underperform at launch. it kept underperforming every single day after.
where it actually spread
we assumed linkedin would be our distribution channel. professional content for professional people.
source | sessions |
|---|---|
reddit (all) | 477 |
352 | |
microsoft teams | 151 |
hacker news | 103 |
48 | |
slack | 24 |
microsoft teams sent 3x more traffic than linkedin.
people shared the rant in work chats. engineering channels. group DMs with coworkers.
slack sent traffic too. 24 sessions from people pasting links in work channels.
thats where content actually spreads now. not linkedin posts with "Thoughts? 👇". work chats where people say "lol this is us."
we thought google discover made it viral
we were wrong.
source | clicks | % of traffic |
|---|---|---|
search | 4,217 | 98% |
discover | 74 | 2% |
discover gave us 74 clicks. total.
the 2,950% spike in US users? that was reddit. techwizardrino posted on r/webdev. not as promotion. as a genuine question. "am i crazy or is this actually happening?"
545 upvotes. 103 comments. people argued. people clicked through.
THEN google noticed. discover picked it up after reddit already did the work.
we had the causation backwards the whole time.
why the rant worked (maybe)
we dont fully understand it. but heres what we think mattered.
original data vs borrowed data
the rant created a stat that didnt exist before. "12x ratio." techwizardrino calculated it himself from maintainer testimonials.
the backlinks article synthesized other peoples research. backlinko said this. authority hacker said that. professional. well-sourced. but nothing new.
nobody screenshots borrowed data. nobody argues about it. nobody shares "heres what backlinko already told you."
universal frustration vs niche frustration
the rant hit a nerve that crossed communities. backend devs. frontend devs. open source maintainers. engineering managers. anyone whos ever reviewed a bad PR felt something.
the backlinks article? useful to SEO practitioners. thats a smaller room.
controversy vs advice
the rant made people angry. some agreed. some thought it was overblown. some accused techwizardrino of being AI-generated himself.
103 comments. people fought.
the backlinks article? hard to argue with. its good advice. but nobody fights about good advice.
the trap
heres the thing nobody tells you about content strategy.
it gives you something to blame when you fail. "we didnt optimize enough." "we missed a step." "the algorithm changed."
but what if the strategy IS the failure?
the rant worked because it was real. someone was frustrated about a real problem and wrote about it without thinking about what would perform.
the moment you think about what performs, you kill the thing that performs.
we cant replicate the rant. the moment we try to replicate it, its not a rant anymore. its strategy wearing a rant costume.
google will know. readers will know. well know.
thats the trap. theres no clean way out of it.
what were doing now
we dont have a new playbook. the old one is broken and we dont know what replaces it.
the only honest changes were making:
community first, discover second. every article gets tested somewhere real before we expect google to care. reddit. hacker news. a discord server. wherever people actually argue about the topic.
if it doesnt resonate there, it wont resonate anywhere.
original data or nothing. no more synthesizing other peoples stats into narratives. if we cant create a new number, a new framework, a new way of seeing something, we dont publish.
the 12x ratio worked because nobody had calculated it before. "94% of content gets zero backlinks" didnt work because backlinko already said it.
stop planning so hard. this one hurts to type. we spent months building processes. content calendars. editorial workflows.
maybe thats the problem. maybe the process is whats killing the output.
the uncomfortable ending
we cant tell you to "just be frustrated." thats not a strategy.
we cant tell you to "stop trying." thats not advice.
but trying didnt work. planning didnt work. following the playbook didnt work.
37.8x. thats the gap between what we planned and what we didnt.
maybe content was always luck and strategy was always cope. maybe the playbook exists to make us feel like we have control over something we dont.
we'll keep publishing. well see what happens.
thats all weve got.
data pulled from our database. jan 17-24, 2026. read-only queries. all numbers real. if you figure out what were missing, let us know. were genuinely asking.