Skip to content
System One

A viral post analyzer for 100,000 X posts (X)

Ran 14 yes/no questions per post, such as whether the hook opens a loop or whether a claim is proven, over 100,000 X posts in 20.4 seconds for 67 cents, then compared which hook types actually beat the viral baseline.

Still from A viral post analyzer for 100,000 X posts (X)Play the video in the post below
Still from x.com

Post on X

Views
81,724
Likes
407
Reposts
30

Read from X on . Counts change daily.

Reported by the author

Full run
20.4s, $0.67100,000 viral X posts. 20.4 seconds. $0.67.x.com
vs Opus 5 per post
~680x cheaperper post that is ~680x cheaperx.com

Movez pulled 100,000 viral X posts through a few X APIs and sent them to Jev in one parallel pass, with 14 typed yes/no questions per post: does the hook open a loop, is there a number in the first line, is the proof real or claimed. Each answer comes back with a confidence score. He makes the distinction explicit: viral analysis is a classification job, not writing.

The full batch finished in 20.4 seconds for $0.67. As a comparison, he ran the same corpus on Claude Opus 5 with the same clock, and it got through 214 posts for $0.98. He puts that at roughly 680 times the per-post cost of Jev, and says a full Opus pass over the 100,000 posts would have cost $458.

What the classifications turned up: 1,220 posts broke into the top 1%, a 1.22% baseline rate. Posts with a superlative claim hit 2.34%, a 1.92x lift; contrarian takes hit 1.59%, a 1.31x lift; launch or tool-drop posts hit 1.46%, a 1.19x lift. Numbered lists, the format he says everyone writes, came in at 0.55%, below baseline, which makes the most-used hook the least viral one in his data.

Open on X

PrimitivesNoul

More like this

Use cases this is tagged with