What 350 companies hand their employees to share

What this is — and isn't

Employee-advocacy leaderboards rank companies by how many employees post. They're useful, and this isn't one. A ranking can't tell you what to change on Monday; this looks at the conditions that can actually be observed — most of them on your public website, every one of them something you can act on: content supply (is there anything worth sharing?), shareability (does a shared link survive the trip?), employee & culture (what your site says about your people — and whether your people are already posting), and AI discoverability (can machines find, read, and cite you?).

To be straight about it: nobody has proven these four things cause employees to post — no such study exists and I haven't run one. The weights are editorial judgment. This tool scrapes nothing from LinkedIn and never will. It does use one thing it did not observe itself: for half of the Employee & Culture score, it reads aggregate employee-posting counts from a licensed third-party index of public professional-network activity. I can't audit how that index is compiled and neither can you, so every one of those lines is labeled as coming from it, reported as "records in the index" rather than as fact, and capped at 12.5% of the grade. And I built this in a few days on a stack of assumptions, without the inside knowledge to be sure these are the metrics that matter most — the reports are pre-generated because I spent the time on reading sites honestly rather than on making the live run fast.

What survives all those caveats: every claim cites the evidence behind it and says where it came from, and when this tool can't read a site — or can't match it to a company in that index — it says so instead of guessing.