LinkedIn post
Your LinkedIn post
Paste your LinkedIn post. Nothing to upload.
←LinkedIn post
Make a research report
Turn LinkedIn posts into a research report
Practitioners publish here before they publish anywhere. So do the people selling to them.
Free to try, no card. Your LinkedIn post opens in Ancher.
Full post bodyAuthor and their roleAttached images and documents
Kept in parts
Every one of these stays separately addressable instead of collapsing into one block of text.
The questionKey findingsEvidenceCounterpoints
Research report
A structured answer to a question, with the evidence and the counter-evidence attached.
LinkedIn is where someone who actually ran the process writes it up eighteen months before a case study exists, which makes it unusually early evidence. It is also where vendors publish content marketing in the same format. Ancher attributes every claim to a named author with the role they stated, separates figures backed by a link from figures backed by nothing, and records that the replies were not captured.
The honest version
The job title is the methodology section
There is no peer review here and no disclosure statement. What you get instead is a public profile stating what the author does for a living, and that is the whole basis on which a reader can weigh the claim. A report that pools these posts into an anonymous consensus has thrown away the only quality signal the source had.
One post, at slide 6/11, read two ways.Illustrative. The figure is invented; the gap it falls into is not.
We ran this across four quarters. The result held every time except
On slide 6 of the carousel — not readThe specific never reaches the draft
Research report
On slide 6 of the carousel
Q3: reversed, n too small
from slide 6/11
Lands in the draft, with its timecode
- Every claim carries the author's name and the role they stated when they posted it.
- Practitioner accounts are kept apart from vendor accounts, because they are different evidence.
- The report records that comment threads were not captured, so nobody reads the absence of objection as agreement.
What comes out
Research report, section by section
A structured answer to a question, with the evidence and the counter-evidence attached.
The question
The question these posts are circling, which is usually narrower than any of them states.
Key findings
What holds across authors in different companies, kept apart from what one person reported.
Evidence
Each figure with its author, their stated role, the slide it came from, and whether a source was linked.
Counterpoints
The opposing position, with a note that the replies where it usually lives were not captured.
What to check next
What would settle it, built from the reports and pages the posts linked to.
LinkedIn-to-research-report prompt
The link on its own gets a summary. This is the instruction that produces the 5 sections above, in that order, with the rules that keep them honest. Paste it with your LinkedIn posts — in Ancher, or in whatever assistant you already use.
Build a research report from these posts. (1) State the question they are circling. (2) Separate findings that hold across authors at different companies from single reports. (3) Give every figure with the author, their stated role, the slide number, and whether a source was linked. (4) State the counter-position and note explicitly that comment threads were not captured. (5) List what would settle it from the linked primaries. Keep practitioner and vendor claims apart.
The detail, if you want it
How each part of a LinkedIn post becomes a section
| From the LinkedIn post | Into | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Author and their role | Key findings | The stated job title is the single most useful piece of context for judging a claim, and it is what separates a finding from an advertisement. |
| Attached images and documents | Evidence | Method details and sample sizes appear on carousel slides, so an evidence table built from post text has provenance missing. |
| Linked pages | What to check next | Posts that link out to a report give you the primary source to check, which is where a report should send its reader. |
| Reactions and comments | Counterpoints | Heavy comment volume means the post was argued with, and that is the signal to go and read a thread this source does not capture. |
| Full post body | The question | The full body holds the qualification the preview cuts, and the qualification is usually where the real question is. |
Everything Ancher keeps from a LinkedIn post
Full post body
LinkedIn truncates behind See more in the feed; the saved copy is the whole thing.
Author and their role
On LinkedIn the stated job title is the single most useful piece of context for judging a claim.
Attached images and documents
Carousel PDFs and slides carry the substance while the post text carries the hook.
Reactions and comments
In a professional feed, engagement tracks what practitioners recognise as a real problem.
Linked pages
Posts that link out to a report or a product page give you the primary source to check.
The four steps
- Add the LinkedIn post. Paste the post or article URL, including an lnkd.in short link. Ancher resolves it, then keeps the body, the author, attached media, and the reaction counts as one source.
- Nothing gets flattened. Full post body, author and their role, attached images and documents, reactions and comments, linked pages stay separately addressable instead of collapsing into one block of text.
- Ask for a research report. Ancher fills the question, key findings, evidence, counterpoints, what to check next using the mapping above, not a generic summary pass.
- Check it before you use it. Every specific keeps a link back to where it came from in the LinkedIn post, so a claim can be verified without reopening the source.
Where this goes wrong
- Comment threads are not captured. On LinkedIn the substantive objection is frequently a reply from someone more senior than the poster, and it will not be in this report.
- Vendor content marketing is written to look exactly like practitioner experience. Check the author's employer against the product being praised.
- Posts describing a success are published far more often than posts describing a failure, so any finding drawn from this source is biased toward things that worked.
Questions people ask
Is LinkedIn a legitimate research source?
For what practitioners are currently doing, yes, and it is earlier than anywhere else. For establishing whether something works, no — there is no control group, no disclosure, and a heavy survivorship bias toward projects that went well.
How do I tell a practitioner from a vendor?
The stated role and employer, which the report keeps beside every claim. It is not verified, so it is recorded as claimed rather than asserted, and an unclear one is marked unclear rather than guessed.
How many posts does this need?
Enough that the same finding appears from people at different companies who do not work together. Below that you are measuring one company's experience and presenting it as an industry pattern.
Bring your own LinkedIn posts
Everything you save lives in one workspace, so the research report is built from your sources — not from a model's memory of the internet.
Open Ancher →Not a LinkedIn post? The same research report also comes from YouTube video, PDF, X thread.