9 Impressions

[Regulo Akers]

Isee two differ reports from PPC (amazon sponsored products) and business one. I found out impressions is always high then sessions? Any idea about what is different between sessions and impressions?

Please do this. The Twitter engagement API provides this data ( -tweet-engagement/overview). Since that's the case, it seems pretty random to not include impressions for Twitter when you include it for other platfoms. Since HubSpot doesn't provide calculations like engagement rate, impressions data is critical for doing the math ourselves.

I would love to understand why this ISN'T included - the documentation doesn't provide an explanation. Adding my vote to this as it's tough on non-technical marketers to have to jump out of HubSpot to get a complete cross-platform view of key social metrics.

The options to get analytics via Twitter directly are well known. However, as Hubspot is our one-for-all-marketing-solution and CRM i dont want to check several sources to measure our marketing-success.

For any sort of bug or data issue we proactively figure out how to ensure that it never happens again, if you feel your data has any issues in the future feel free to let even the Help? link folks know so that it receives attention from multiple angles.

Hi, our marketing team has noticed our twitter impressions have gone down to 30% of what we are use to seeing. As the content writer, the style, hashtags and mentions have not changed consistency but the impressions as of May 17 have consistently become 30% of what I am use to seeing. I am confused and have been trying to find out what is the reasoning behind this. I wanted to check in and see if it happens to be a bug?

When your impressions are up and your engagements are down, it could mean that while you are reaching a wider audience, the posts are resonating with them less (hence the lower engagement). If engagement is high but impressions are lower, it could mean that although less people have seen your posts, the ones who do are perhaps more of a targeted audience that is likely to interact with your content.

While the jobs I list overlap heavily with the jobs 80,000 Hours lists, I organize them and conceptualize them differently. 80,000 Hours tends to emphasize "paths" to particular roles working on particular causes; by contrast, I emphasize "aptitudes" one can build in a wide variety of roles and causes (including non-effective-altruist organizations) and then apply to a wide variety of longtermist-relevant jobs (often with options working on more than one cause). Example aptitudes include: "helping organizations achieve their objectives via good business practices," "evaluating claims against each other," "communicating already-existing ideas to not-yet-sold audiences," etc.

(Other frameworks for career choice include starting with causes (AI safety, biorisk, etc.) or heuristics ("Do work you can be great at," "Do work that builds your career capital and gives you more options.") I tend to feel people should consider multiple frameworks when making career choices, since any one framework can contain useful insight, but risks being too dogmatic and specific for individual cases.)

For each aptitude I list, I include ideas for how to explore the aptitude and tell whether one is on track. Something I like about an aptitude-based framework is that it is often relatively straightforward to get a sense of one's promise for, and progress on, a given "aptitude" if one chooses to do so. This contrasts with cause-based and path-based approaches, where there's a lot of happenstance in whether there is a job available in a given cause or on a given path, making it hard for many people to get a clear sense of their fit for their first-choice cause/path and making it hard to know what to do next. This framework won't make it easier for people to get the jobs they want, but it might make it easier for them to start learning about what sort of work is and isn't likely to be a fit.

In many cases, developing a listed aptitude is no guarantee of being able to get a job directly focused on top longtermist goals. Longtermism is a fairly young lens on the world, and there are (at least today) a relatively small number of jobs fitting that description. However, I also believe that even if one never gets such a job, there are a lot of opportunities to contribute to top longtermist goals, using whatever job and aptitudes one does have. To flesh out this view, I lay out an "aptitude-agnostic" vision for contributing to longtermism.

Basic profile: helping an organization by bringing "generally useful" skills to it. By "generally useful" skills, I mean skills that could help a wide variety of organizations accomplish a wide variety of different objectives. Such skills could include:

Beth Jones (Open Philanthropy Director of Operations); Max Dalton and Joan Gass at CEA; Malo Bourgon at MIRI. (I focused on people in executive roles and gave only a small number of examples, but I could've listed a large percentage of the people currently working at longtermism-focused organizations, as well as people working at not-explicitly-longtermist organizations doing work that's important by longtermist lights. In general, my examples will be illustrative and focused on relatively simple/"pure" cases of someone focusing on a single aptitude; I don't think people should read into any "exclusions.")

In many cases, early-career work in one specialization can give you some exposure to others. It's often possible to move between the different specializations and try different things. (The last three listed - communications, finance/accounting, and law - are probably the least like this.)

I'm especially positive on joining promising, small-but-growing organizations. In this sort of organization, you often get a chance to try many different things, and can get a rich exposure to many facets of helping an organization succeed. This can be an especially good way to get experience with people management and project management, which are often very generally applicable and in-demand skills across organizations. Coming into such a company in whatever role is available, and then being flexible and simply focused on helping the company succeed, can be a good learning experience that helps with both identifying and skilling up at good-fit aptitudes.

As a first pass, the answer to "How on track are you to develop a longtermism-relevant aptitude?" seems reasonably approximated by "How generically strong is your performance?" Raises, promotions, and performance reviews are all data points here. I think one of the best indicators of success would be that the people you work most closely with are enthusiastic about you and would give you a glowing reference - combined with those people (and the organization you work for) being themselves impressive.

Basic profile: advancing into some high-leverage role in government (or some other institution such as the World Bank), from which you can help the larger institution make decisions that are good for the long-run future of the world.

While organization-supporting aptitudes are mostly (in the long run) about helping some organization whose mission you're aligned with accomplish its existing goals, political and bureaucratic aptitudes are more about using a position of influence (or an influential network) to raise the salience and weight of longtermist goals within an institution.

Essentially any career that ends up in an influential position in some government (including executive, judicial, and legislative positions) could qualify here (though of course some are more likely to be relevant than others).

Richard Danzig (former Secretary of the Navy, author of Technology Roulette); multiple people who are pursuing degrees in security studies at Georgetown and aiming for (or already heading into) government roles.

First, you should probably have a clear idea of what institution (or set of institutions) could be a good fit. A possible question to ask yourself: "What's an institution where I could imagine myself being relatively happy, productive, and motivated for a long time while 'playing by the institution's rules?'" I'd suggest speaking with later-career people at the institution to get as detailed a sense as possible of how long it will take to reach the kind of position you're hoping for; what your day-to-day life will be like in the meantime; and what you will need to do to succeed.

Then, you can try for essentially any job at this institution and focus on performing well by the institution's standards. Others who have advanced successfully should be able to give a good guide to what these are. In general (though not universally), I would expect that advancing along any track the institution offers is a good start, whether or not that track is directly relevant to longtermism.

Sometimes the best way to advance will involve going somewhere other than the institution itself, temporarily (e.g., law school, public policy school, think tanks). Graduate schools present the risk that you could spend a long time there without learning much about the actual career track itself, so it may sometimes make sense to try out a junior role, see how it feels, and make sure you're expecting a graduate degree to be worth it before going for the graduate degree.

I think one of the main questions for this sort of aptitude is "How sustainable does this feel?" This question is relevant for all aptitudes, but especially here - for political and bureaucratic roles, one of the main determinants of how well you advance is simply how long you stick with it and how consistently you meet the institution's explicit and implicit expectations.

I discuss this one at some length because I know it fairly well. However, I think it's one of the hardest aptitudes to succeed at at the moment, as it tends to require very high levels of self-directedness.

3a8082e126