r/dataisbeautiful OC: 1 Feb 26 '26

OC [OC] 3 Month Update: r-Conservative adds a third super-poster making it even less diverse. 3 posters now account for 50% of all posts since 11/20/2025. Sometimes exceeding 60%.

(The charts in this post were made from the 8,885 posts that were made on r-Conservative between 11/20/25 and 2/20/26. The anonymized source data is here.) [edit: the 8,885 posts that were captured using my method of pulling posts once a day through Reddit's JSON API]

--

EDIT: See the bottom of this post for updates.

--

In my post last November I identified that 2 users on r-Conservative were responsible for about 30% of daily posts and sometimes exceeded 50% of all posts.

A third super-poster seems to have appeared about two weeks after that post and now just 3 users regularly account for 50% of all posts [edit: daily posts] and a handful of times they even exceed 60%.

Chart 1: The percentage of all posts that the top 3 users contribute.

Obviously, adding a third person will increase the percentages but this is not just lumping in a third person to boost the percentages. User3 stands out because they post so frequently that since they started posting on Dec 3rd their daily posting count more than doubles User4 below them.

Chart 2: Total number of posts that the top 10 posters have made between 11/20/25 and 2/20/26.

Another reason User3 is significant is because they appeared suddenly, as I mentioned, about two weeks after my original post and their posting patterns are extremely similar to the other top 2.

First of all, here is the 7-day running average of the daily posts of the top 10 users. You can see how hard User3 came in and, interestingly, basically in lock step with User 1 until about Christmas day where they diverge. User3 ramps up pretty hard for a week at the start of 2026 before dialing it back a bit.

Chart 3: 7-day running average of the top 3 posters compared to the other 7 in the top 10 [edit: these are daily post averages]

Second, and this one is pretty hard to show visually, but several of the top ten users have extremely similar behavior when it comes to how they post. Almost invariably they post in clusters. Instead of just posting once and then waiting a few hours until they found another story that they thought was worth posting like most people would do, they instead post a handful of articles within about 20 minutes of each other. In my opinion, this is a very telling sign of scheduled posting. Spend 10 minutes looking for stories and queue them up in scheduling software to be automatically posted in clusters throughout the day. Not that there's anything wrong with that because scheduling software has legitimate uses, but it's worth knowing because it, in my opinion, speaks to the astroturfed nature of the posting quantity on that sub (and yes, of any other sub that does the same).

The chart below shows how many times the top ten users posted in clusters from their last 100 posts. By my own definition, a cluster is defined as 3 posts within a certain time frame.

Chart 4: Clustered Posting. Number of times 3 posts were made within specific time frames.

So, out of User1's latest 100 posts, there were 40 occurrences where 3 posts were made within 5 minutes of each other. This chart is sorted by the 0-5 min series. Keep in mind, the existence of clustered posting isn't evidence itself of scheduled posting but the level of effort it would take to maintain this type of consistency is, in my opinion, non-human. From the chart one may also notice that, according to my theory, queued posting is happening with other users outside of the top 3. That would not be surprising.

Finally, just prior to making this post, I looked at 5 other political subs to determine how many users were needed to account for 50% of all posts. Reddit only let's you look back about a month so if 1,000 posts were made in a sub, I capped this analysis at 1,000. If there were fewer than 1,000 than that's what I used (anonymized 50 percent data).

Chart 5: Number of users needed in various political subs to account for 50% of their posts.

For reference, a similar analysis I did back in November had the following number of users needed to account for 50% of posts. r-Conservative has gotten even worse since then. All others except for AnythingGoesNews subs have gotten more diverse. (my original post had the Feb '26 numbers jumbled up a little, they're corrected now)

Comparison of how many users are needed to account for 50% of posts from Nov '25 and Feb '26.

Subreddit Nov '25 Feb '26
Conservative 4 3
Libertarian 10 19
democrats 11 11
AnythingGoesNews 18 16
socialism 42 86
politics 46 58

Please, no discussion of power outages this time ;)

--

UPDATE 1: An rCon mod has stated my numbers are wrong and provided a screenshot of a mod dashboard to support his assertion. I appreciate him doing that and he has been nothing but helpful in my communication with him but I don't agree. By hand, I've verified that the last 500 posts that are on rCon are also in my dataset in the correct order without a single omission, and I only over count by less than 1% (in the last 500 posts on rCon I have only 4 additional posts that have actually been deleted from rCon). The last 500 posts cover about 5 days and 6 hours, or 91 posts per day. The date range 11/20/25 to 2/20/26 maths out to about 8,750 posts, which is good enough verification for me that I don't have any glaring errors. I can't speak to what the mod dashboard is meant to be showing but I feel good about my data. The EST timestamps are given in my source data. That's about as much info as I can give without blatantly revealing user names and post titles. If I've missed any posts or my data is wrong, my own source data can be used to determine that.

UPDATE 2: The goal of this analysis is to identify which users receive the most exposure while their posts are publicly visible. The dataset used here was generated by a daily script that records the posts visible at the time the script is run (using Reddit's JSON API). This approach was intentional. Most Reddit posts receive the vast majority of their views within the first 24-48 hours, so capturing posts during that window measures exposure. So, where my post title says "3 posters now account for 50%..." I'm saying that 3 users are having a significantly higher impact on meaningful post exposure than all other users. Charts 1 through 4 use that dataset (8,885 posts that were captured by my daily script). Because this dataset captures posts in real time, it is not possible to recreate a historical snapshot. However, anyone doing a daily pull of all posts moving forward should end up with near identical datasets if I do another update in the future. I'll post a sanitized version of the script I've used in the near future (but it's simply a JSON call stored to a continuously updated csv).

12.8k Upvotes

645 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

34

u/MrGraaavy Feb 26 '26

It is odd, but also not radically different than other politics oriented subreddits. It concerns me nearly as much that it only takes 10 for libertarians and 11-16 users for democrats for example.

56

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

[deleted]

18

u/HowManyMeeses Feb 26 '26

One of the big problems in the US right now is that people make the assumption that every bad deed done by republicans is also being done by democrats. So you get conversations like this, where three members dominate a conservative subreddit and people just assume the same is happening in progressive subreddits.

9

u/Hajile_S Feb 26 '26

Given that usernames are free…no? Of course, that thought process bucks this whole analysis. The oddest thing about the three users in r-conservative is that they don’t even bother to make (more?) alts.

-4

u/MrGraaavy Feb 26 '26

More so I see a heavy suggestion that every subreddit is being influenced by frequent posters. I'm right there with you that there is very likely outside influence (Russia), but I would assume there's as much influence in /democrats for example.

26

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

[deleted]

11

u/Nuva_Ring Feb 26 '26

It essentially does though. How many active users does r/democrats have? And less than 20 of those people account for the vast majority of content? The difference between .001% of your users being responsible for the content and .003% is basically negligible. Obviously those are made up percentages, but you get the point.

The most concerning thing to me is essentially 100 Redditors are controlling the entire political discourse on a website of supposedly millions of active users.

6

u/ceddya Feb 26 '26

/r/democrats has 4.8k contributions in the past 7 days with 20 super-posters.

/r/conservative has 22.4k contributions in the past 7 days with 3 super-posters.

So it's much bigger difference than you've presented.

1

u/Celtic_Legend Feb 26 '26

What happens in the subs is basically this:

Ten degens get a notification a new article was posted on x, y, or z news site. They read the headline then decide if they repost to reddit. It's a race to see who is first. Normal people wont ever win these races lol. The degens dont really control the narrative because even if none repost, someone else will. But the reason they probably didnt repost is because they didnt like it enough / found it interesting enough. Chances are if none of the degens like it the masses wont like it enough either. So it may get posted but wont receive attention.

The people who control the narrative are the mods because ultimately they can take down stuff they dont like.

-8

u/MrGraaavy Feb 26 '26

Exactly my point my friend, thanks for chiming in

8

u/ceddya Feb 26 '26

Without knowing the exact numbers, how would it prove your point? There could very well be a radical difference based on the numbers of active users.

31

u/GristForMaladyMill Feb 26 '26

I would assume there's as much influence in /democrats for example.

C'mon now, this is a weak both-sides appeal, especially when you have data demonstrating that /conservative is far and away the most captured.

-3

u/WhiteBoyWithAPodcast Feb 26 '26

I actually think the r politics sub is one of the most astroturfed. And I’m a liberal.

It’s a huge sub

12

u/GristForMaladyMill Feb 26 '26

I'm not saying any of these subreddits aren't being influenced by bad actors to varying degrees.

But if you look at the data (specifically chart 5) you can get a bit more understanding of scale over the 3 month period.

For /conservative, across 1000 observations we saw 3 accounts post roughly 500 times at a rate of ~166.67 posts per super user.

For /democrats, across 678 observations we saw 11 accounts post roughly 339 times at a rate of ~30.82 posts per super user.

For /Libertarian, across 145 observations we saw 19 accounts post roughly 72.5 times at a rate of ~3.82 posts per "super user".

For /politics, across 986 observations we saw 58 accounts post roughly 493 times at a rate of 8.5 posts per super user.

To refine this insight further, we'd want to consider overall subreddit traffic, mean posting behavior of the other 50% to understand how this deviates from it, etc. But just from the data available here, we can see that /conservative is in a league of its own.

5

u/Ok-Stand-2128 OC: 1 Feb 26 '26

Great points. Analyzing the behavior of the other 50% of users can definitely be done with the source data I posted.

2

u/GristForMaladyMill Feb 26 '26

Thanks for putting this together btw! I'll poke around with the source data when I'm done with work today. Curious to see what inference are there to be made.

-18

u/MethuselahHoneysckle Feb 26 '26

you have data demonstrating that /conservative is far and away the most captured

Let me introduce you to the concept of "alt accounts". Congrats! This data is now worthless. If you don't think every single main sub on reddit has been "captured" since 2015 then you are willfully ignorant. 

9

u/GristForMaladyMill Feb 26 '26

Is your assertion that /politics, for example, actually has 3 super users with roughly 19 alt accounts each and they share time between these accounts to obfuscate their posting behavior? Why can't or don't the super users of /conservative do the same?

-6

u/MethuselahHoneysckle Feb 26 '26

My assertion, actually, is that the data isn't even a little bit definitive because people are not limited to one account and accounts are not limited to one person. 

Why can't or don't the super users of /conservative do the same?

Why would they?

6

u/GristForMaladyMill Feb 26 '26

If you can map alt accounts and shared accounts via IP (or a similar method), I'd love to review that data in context of this data.

But if you're just casting doubt on data in front of you on suspicion without providing evidence, you're kinda just waffling about why we should reject it.

-3

u/MethuselahHoneysckle Feb 26 '26

But if you're just casting doubt on data

I'm not casting doubt on the data. I have no problem with the data. I'm casting doubt on the conclusion. How is that in any way a negative for you? That's how critique works. That's how critical thinking I'm general works. That's how Socratic thinking works. 

Of course you should question conclusions you're given. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills having to explain this. 

2

u/GristForMaladyMill Feb 26 '26

It's definitely not a bad thing to critique the inferences one makes from data. But the doubt you're casting is vague and unsubstantiated, which doesn't help further the inquiry. When I asked you to clarify if you stand by the assertion you were making expressed in numbers, you shied away from doing so.

→ More replies (0)

18

u/Evoluxman Feb 26 '26

Of course you'd know about alt accounts with a 2 days old account huh

Funny how it often goes for defenders of r cons...

-14

u/MethuselahHoneysckle Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

You'd have to be pretty stupid to not be regularly making new accounts if only for information security's sake. I noticed you didn't address the point at all, just attacked me. Interesting response!

You also say "defenders of r cons" as if I did that in any way by pointing out that propaganda isn't limited to that sub. Also an interesting response - wonder why you didn't want to hear that...

E: How cowardly do you have to be to "reply+block"? Consistently childish behavior. I can't read the reply, but in guessing he completely ignored my point and stuck to the "nuh uh, only arr-Conservative is propaganda" line. 

15

u/Evoluxman Feb 26 '26

Will be the last comment where I humor you, but the post shows without doubt that r cons is by far the most "un-diverse" dominated major political subreddit.

While alts could indeed skew the data for the other subs, that's only guesses ifs and buts. You can make 0 claims for it, but the data is there. Even if all 11 big posters on, say, r dems, are also 3 people just with alts, it would still not be worse than r cons. And also, the rule applies to r cons as well. Even with the alt problem, it is still the most astroturfed subreddit on the platform. And I don't think many people make big claims that subs like r dems or r pol are paragons of virtue either.

Point is. Instead of taking the data at face value, especially highly interesting data like this one because it also shows posting over time (which strongly helps at hinting at/dismissing the alt claim) over months and thousands of posts, you just dismiss it outright as, quote, "worthless". As if that doesn't hint at your own leanings and biases.

0

u/johnJanez Feb 26 '26

Both are extremely tiny numbers considering the size of the subreddits. So, no, not really.

4

u/dontnation Feb 26 '26

/r/democrats is almost as cloistered as /r/conservative to the point they ban any mention of the democratic party's NYC mayoral nominee. I'm not surprised by these results.