Agreed. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and next year if they create/manipulate the gradings, I will moan. But as it stands, I can only see maybe Salfords grading that seems out of sync with what I'd have expected.

Shudds improving their SM scores, it would appear... https://twitter.com/Giantsrl/status/173 ... gr%5Etweet

Shudds improving their SM scores, it would appear... https://twitter.com/Giantsrl/status/173 ... gr%5Etweet

Quote ="FIL"Shudds improving their SM scores, it would appear... https://twitter.com/Giantsrl/status/173 ... gr%5Etweet'" There SM teams statement shows there targets on platforms for 2024 are behind what Trinitys are already

Quote ="FIL"Shudds improving their SM scores, it would appear... https://twitter.com/Giantsrl/status/173 ... gr%5Etweet'" There SM teams statement shows there targets on platforms for 2024 are behind what Trinitys are already

Cheers FT, sounds good but do clubs get graded on hits/subscriptions or % increases ??
If it's the latter then I would hope that our % increases will be going through the roof in the next 12 months, especially if we can get some success on the field

It's purely on impressions or 'hits'. So that's likes shares and comments.
That is a new figure each year.
But also followers and subscribers which you are more likely to keep each year.

Looks good and I think we could eventually do a similar article to encourage growth but posting % increases mean nothing to IMG if you were very low in the first place.

Yep a 99% increase on 100 hits takes you to 199 hits, bit of smoke and mirrors going on with Hudds here trying to make out they are smashing new heights supporter engagement