# Explicit engagement request Part of [The AI Tells Index](https://feedsquad.com/ai-tells). A tell signals low effort. It does not identify an author. Skilled writers produce every shape listed here, some of them daily, and automated detectors misread those writers for it at rates measured above 60 percent on non-native English prose. Nothing in this index proves that a machine wrote anything. Read an entry as one piece of evidence to weigh against the false-positive notes printed beside it. ## Facts - Id: explicit-engagement-request - Category: Platform-specific (platform) - Subcategory: engagement-bait - Also known as: Like if you agree, tag a colleague, share this post, drop an emoji below - Status: Active. Currently signals low-effort writing. - Severity: high - Evidence grade: primary-doc (platform policy, vendor documentation, or a model card) - Languages: en - Added: 2026-08-15 - Updated: 2026-08-17 - Page: https://feedsquad.com/ai-tells/explicit-engagement-request ## Description A direct ask for a reaction, a tag, a share or a save. This is the one pattern in the whole directory that platforms define in writing and act on. Meta has demoted it since December 2017 under the name engagement bait, LinkedIn declines to promote posts whose intent is boosting reach through reaction asks, and YouTube names engagement manipulation and fake engagement in its spam policies. Reaction bait, tag bait, share bait and save bait are one policy category and are covered here rather than split across four entries. ## Why it reads as machine-written The ask is what a post substitutes for a reason to respond. Generation makes the substitution cheap, so it appears at the end of drafts that have nothing else to close with. The enforcement is authorship-indifferent: platforms demote the ask whoever typed it, which is exactly why this entry is high severity and none of the style entries are. ## Detection Type: deterministic (a regular expression, run as written) Scope: document ECMAScript regular expression. The build validator compiles it and tests it against this entry's own specimens. ```regex \b(?:(?:like|repost|share|retweet|comment)[ \t]+(?:this[ \t]+|it[ \t]+)?if[ \t]+you\b|tag[ \t]+(?:a|an|your|two|three|2|3)[ \t]+(?:colleague|colleagues|friend|friends|founder|founders|marketer|marketers|teammate|teammates|person|people|someone)\b|save[ \t]+this[ \t]+(?:post[ \t]+)?for[ \t]+later\b|drop[ \t]+an?[ \t]+[^\s.,!?\n]{1,15}[ \t]+(?:below|in[ \t]+the[ \t]+comments)\b|comment[ \t]+["“]?[A-Za-z]{1,12}["”]?[ \t]+below\b|double[ \t-]tap[ \t]+if\b|follow[ \t]+for[ \t]+more\b) ``` Flags: gi ## Examples Constructed specimens. Written for this index. Never quoted from anyone's posts. ### Specimen 1 Before, exhibiting the tell: > Rough quarter, real lessons. We shipped slower than planned and learned more than expected. Save this post for later and tag a founder who needs it. After, repaired: > Rough quarter, real lessons. We missed the March release by five weeks because two engineers were pulled onto a migration nobody had scoped. The fix was a written capacity check before any date leaves the room, and it has held for two releases since. Note: Two hollow beats and then the ask, which is where a post goes when it has nothing to close with. Figures in this repair are invented for the specimen. ### Specimen 2 Before, exhibiting the tell: > Cold email still works if you get the basics right. Personalise the first line and keep the whole thing under 120 words. Tag a colleague who needs to read this, and comment SEND below and I will send you the template. After, repaired: > Cold email still works if you get the basics right. Our reply rate went from 3 to 9 percent after we cut the average message from 140 words to 70 and deleted the opening compliment. The template is linked in my profile and nobody has to comment to get it. Note: The repair keeps the offer and removes the toll gate. Figures in this repair are invented for the specimen. ## False positives Who legitimately writes this way. Meta's own guideline carves out the cases that look identical and are not: appeals to find missing people or property, fundraisers, petitions, and posts during natural disasters or life-threatening events. Beyond the carve-outs, creators legitimately prompt saves on reference material because saving is how a reader files it, and charities ask for shares because sharing is the ask. The reviewer check is whether the requested action does anything for the reader once taken. ## Model attribution No family attribution. This is marketer behaviour that models inherited from the corpus, and Meta named it as a human tactic five years before any assistant could write a post. ## Platform notes - meta: Meta transparency guidance defines engagement bait as posts that explicitly request votes, shares, comments, tags, likes or other reactions, and reduces their distribution. The December 2017 announcement gives one concrete example only. The five named sub-types that secondary sources routinely attribute to that announcement are not in it, so this entry does not use them. - linkedin: LinkedIn says it will not promote posts that expressly ask or encourage the community to engage via likes or reactions where the intent is boosting reach, and its community policies ban artificially increasing engagement. The company frames both as behaviour rather than as a writing style. - youtube: YouTube spam policy names engagement manipulation, defined as repetitive or templated content aimed at artificially inflating engagement, and fake engagement, which covers exploiting features such as polls to force interaction. ## Sources 1. Meta transparency centre, engagement bait https://transparency.meta.com/features/approach-to-ranking/content-distribution-guidelines/engagement-bait/ (tier: primary-doc; accessed 2026-08-14) 2. Facebook, fighting engagement bait on Facebook (Dec 2017) https://about.fb.com/news/2017/12/news-feed-fyi-fighting-engagement-bait-on-facebook/ (tier: primary-doc; accessed 2026-08-14) 3. LinkedIn, keeping your feed relevant and productive https://www.linkedin.com/blog/member/product/keeping-your-feed-relevant-and-productive (tier: primary-doc; accessed 2026-08-14) ## Status history Ids are permanent. A retired tell keeps its id and its page. - 2026-08-15, Active: Three platforms define this in first-party policy text and state the consequence, which is demotion or lost promotion rather than removal. Meta has run the policy since December 2017. Nothing in the evidence suggests the behaviour has stopped, so the entry ships active at high severity. ## License CC BY 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Attribution: The AI Tells Index, feedsquad.com/ai-tells Reuse the data, including commercially. Keep the attribution line. --- Dataset version 1.0.0. Schema version 1. Part of [FeedSquad](https://feedsquad.com). Built by [Herman Foundry](https://hermanfoundry.com) from Levi, Finnish Lapland.