The algorithm is like AI. It doesn't have feelings. It only knows how to compute. It doesn't "hate us." It just cycles, like everything in this world. I have over 300K followers, and I'll hit weeks where my content barely gets over 1,000 views to suddenly getting 200K-700K views to even 2 million! The algorithm likes consistency. So just have fun keep being showing up :)
So timely because I’m going through a process now where I’m pushing myself to reject the algorithm candy and start going deeper with my writing. More me. Less what I think the algorithm wants me to write to amass a following. It gets so tricky with so much noise in the feed telling me that I’m inadequate because I didn’t smash a $10k MRR yet. But … I’ve done it that way. I’ve got the burnout to prove it. I’m gonna slow it down now. Go deeper. Vibe a bit. Trust the process. And take it slower.
That distinction- traffic is rented, audience is built - is sharp. It's worth sitting with. The algorithm optimizes for the first because it's measurable — DMs and "are you okay?" messages don't show up in dashboards. The community on Substack does seem more intentional than most platforms, which probably means the algorithm here is working slightly differently. Whether that's design choices or just the self-selection of people who still read long-form, I'm not sure. Probably both.
I think you outline a positive path forward early in this article, the algorithm wants to show the right thing to the right person so they won't close the app. If we can trust in this, then we can feel good knowing that a lack of views isn't due to the quality, it's the availability of the right people. 5 people listening is better than shouting to 5000.
This distinction between traffic and audience is probably the most important idea in the whole piece.
A lot of creators say they want an audience, but their behavior is almost entirely optimized for traffic. They study the algorithm, tweak headlines, post constantly, chase the format that performs this week. The numbers go up, but the relationship with readers stays surprisingly thin.
An audience behaves very differently. They don’t just react to a piece of content; they start to recognize the voice behind it. They return even when the post isn’t perfectly optimized, even when the schedule slips, even when the topic isn’t immediately “useful.”
That’s why the algorithm feels so powerful and so frustrating at the same time. It measures signals that are easy to count like clicks, time on page, engagement, but the thing creators actually want to build is much slower and harder to quantify: trust, familiarity, the sense that someone on the other side is worth paying attention to over time.
The irony is that many of the strongest writers on Substack seem to grow precisely when they stop chasing the algorithm and start leaning harder into their own voice. Not because the algorithm suddenly rewards authenticity, but because readers do. And readers, eventually, are the only part of the system that actually matters.
Philipp, this one cuts right through the noise — and when I ran it through the little analysis tool I’ve been building, the underlying structure was unmistakable:
Hook: the emotional sting every creator knows — the silence after publishing, the fear of being “punished” for being human.
Pattern: the false personalization of the algorithm — treating indifference as hostility, and hostility as proof we’re failing.
Authority: the two traps (“The Neurotic” and “The Cynic”) that perfectly describe how most creators cope when they don’t understand the system.
Turn: from “the algorithm is against me” → to “the algorithm is neutral, and my job is to build a life, not a performance.”
Mechanic: the middle path — meaningful work, sustainable pace, and an audience that cares about the creator, not the cadence.
Close: the invitation to find the deeper identity beneath the performance layer, and build from that instead of fear.
What I love is how you reframe the entire relationship between creators and the algorithm.
The tool flagged this as the real insight:
traffic needs constant feeding; an audience needs connection.
I'm very new on here and the silence is understandably deafening. But you're absolutely right, we need to put out an authentic signal to our audiences rather than chase dopamine-rich algorithm candy.
The algorithm is like AI. It doesn't have feelings. It only knows how to compute. It doesn't "hate us." It just cycles, like everything in this world. I have over 300K followers, and I'll hit weeks where my content barely gets over 1,000 views to suddenly getting 200K-700K views to even 2 million! The algorithm likes consistency. So just have fun keep being showing up :)
It works like a casino. Sometimes you hit the jackpot, sometimes nothing. A perfect strategy to keep people playing.
The algorithm absolutely does not care about you. Then again, neither does the universe
You can’t deny reality.
So timely because I’m going through a process now where I’m pushing myself to reject the algorithm candy and start going deeper with my writing. More me. Less what I think the algorithm wants me to write to amass a following. It gets so tricky with so much noise in the feed telling me that I’m inadequate because I didn’t smash a $10k MRR yet. But … I’ve done it that way. I’ve got the burnout to prove it. I’m gonna slow it down now. Go deeper. Vibe a bit. Trust the process. And take it slower.
I’m happy to hear. They telling you that you are inadequate tells more about them than about you.
That distinction- traffic is rented, audience is built - is sharp. It's worth sitting with. The algorithm optimizes for the first because it's measurable — DMs and "are you okay?" messages don't show up in dashboards. The community on Substack does seem more intentional than most platforms, which probably means the algorithm here is working slightly differently. Whether that's design choices or just the self-selection of people who still read long-form, I'm not sure. Probably both.
I think you outline a positive path forward early in this article, the algorithm wants to show the right thing to the right person so they won't close the app. If we can trust in this, then we can feel good knowing that a lack of views isn't due to the quality, it's the availability of the right people. 5 people listening is better than shouting to 5000.
I love the strategic path. Trying to feed the algorithm drives away authenticity.
Thanks for your post Phillipp - your clarity and honesty on this topic is gold.
And I relate to your pressure to post during periods of being occupied.
I hope you're feeling better now, and however often you choose to post, I'll look forward to the read.
X
Thanks Lucy :)
Truth
I think for those who seek peace, a passionate lifestyle is more than enough.
A salary that exceeds expectations is welcome .
A salary that overrides peace is not.
Very well put Yannis!
Thank you ,
Great article, I did miss your article last week but I'm glad you put your health first.
I'm breaking my notes streak this week on purpose (will write an article about it). Feels so uncomfortable, but that's where growth happens.
Thanks for being here Yvette.
This has really been me the first couple months this year. Stressing because I didn’t hit my schedule on Substack…
Feeling like I let my 36 people who subscribe down..🤣
BTW, I’m curious how you get your post cover to be a video? Is it a GIF? Is it available to everyone?
To make covers like this you can buy my course for $997… or just use a gif.
This distinction between traffic and audience is probably the most important idea in the whole piece.
A lot of creators say they want an audience, but their behavior is almost entirely optimized for traffic. They study the algorithm, tweak headlines, post constantly, chase the format that performs this week. The numbers go up, but the relationship with readers stays surprisingly thin.
An audience behaves very differently. They don’t just react to a piece of content; they start to recognize the voice behind it. They return even when the post isn’t perfectly optimized, even when the schedule slips, even when the topic isn’t immediately “useful.”
That’s why the algorithm feels so powerful and so frustrating at the same time. It measures signals that are easy to count like clicks, time on page, engagement, but the thing creators actually want to build is much slower and harder to quantify: trust, familiarity, the sense that someone on the other side is worth paying attention to over time.
The irony is that many of the strongest writers on Substack seem to grow precisely when they stop chasing the algorithm and start leaning harder into their own voice. Not because the algorithm suddenly rewards authenticity, but because readers do. And readers, eventually, are the only part of the system that actually matters.
Perfect timing. I’m on a LinkedIn fast to reconsider how much time I spend there vs the benefit.
Philipp, this one cuts right through the noise — and when I ran it through the little analysis tool I’ve been building, the underlying structure was unmistakable:
Hook: the emotional sting every creator knows — the silence after publishing, the fear of being “punished” for being human.
Pattern: the false personalization of the algorithm — treating indifference as hostility, and hostility as proof we’re failing.
Authority: the two traps (“The Neurotic” and “The Cynic”) that perfectly describe how most creators cope when they don’t understand the system.
Turn: from “the algorithm is against me” → to “the algorithm is neutral, and my job is to build a life, not a performance.”
Mechanic: the middle path — meaningful work, sustainable pace, and an audience that cares about the creator, not the cadence.
Close: the invitation to find the deeper identity beneath the performance layer, and build from that instead of fear.
What I love is how you reframe the entire relationship between creators and the algorithm.
The tool flagged this as the real insight:
traffic needs constant feeding; an audience needs connection.
Beautifully done.
I love this take.
I'm very new on here and the silence is understandably deafening. But you're absolutely right, we need to put out an authentic signal to our audiences rather than chase dopamine-rich algorithm candy.
Coherence > Virality