LinkedIn Pulse Lost 90% of Its Organic Traffic. Here's What Killed It.

LinkedIn Pulse went from 25.8 million monthly organic visits to 2.4 million in under two years. From my experience tracking subdirectory traffic for B2B clients, I've never seen a section of a DR 99 site collapse this fast. The reason is simple: people discovered they could publish anything on Pulse and ride LinkedIn's authority straight to page one. Nudifiers, gambling apps, pirated APKs. Google eventually noticed.

I pulled Ahrefs data on every major LinkedIn subdirectory from January 2022 to February 2026 to see what actually happened: what sections grew, what sections died, and what the top-ranking Pulse pages really looked like at the peak.

The Timeline: How Pulse Went From 2M to 26M to 2M

The data tells a three-act story. In early 2022, LinkedIn Pulse was a modest section doing about 2 million organic visits per month. Then something changed around mid-2023.

The surge from May 2023 to March 2024 wasn't organic growth. It was an influx of content from people who discovered that anything published under linkedin.com/pulse inherited LinkedIn's DR 99. A Pulse article about payday loans ranks faster than a payday loans site with years of backlinks. That's the economics that drove the abuse.

What Was Actually Ranking on LinkedIn Pulse

This is the part nobody talks about with data. I sorted every Pulse page by organic traffic at the March 2024 peak. Here are the top 20 pages on "the world's largest professional network."

Out of the top 20 highest-traffic LinkedIn Pulse pages, exactly one was arguably legitimate tech content (Bing Image Creator). The rest: three deepfake/nudifier tools, a sex chatbot guide, leaked celebrity nudes, pirated APK downloads, gambling apps, predatory loan affiliates, Instagram hacking tools, and greeting card spam.

This is what a DR 99 domain looks like when anyone can publish on it with zero editorial review.

The Collaborative Articles Graveyard

LinkedIn's /advice/ section (collaborative articles) had a different origin but the same ending. These weren't user-published spam. LinkedIn itself generated AI-written questions like "What do you do if your team's presentation skills need improvement?" and invited professionals to contribute short answers.

The pitch was clever: contribute, earn a "Top Voice" badge, get visibility. But the content was thin by design. AI-generated prompts with crowdsourced two-paragraph answers, all riding LinkedIn's DR 99 into Google's top results for thousands of professional queries.

From zero to 959K monthly visits in 13 months. Then back to 37K in 22 months. The section went from 320K indexed pages to 38K. Google didn't just devalue the content. It removed most of it from the index entirely.

What's Actually Growing: The Subdirectory Comparison

Here's the part that matters for anyone building on LinkedIn. Not everything declined. While Pulse and /advice/ collapsed, LinkedIn's native posts section quietly grew.

The pattern is clear. LinkedIn's core product sections (company pages, profiles) declined moderately, consistent with the industry-wide traffic loss from AI Overviews and zero-click search. LinkedIn itself has acknowledged a 60% decline in non-brand B2B topics. But the sections that were exploitable for parasite SEO (Pulse and collaborative articles) didn't just decline. They were destroyed.

The /posts/ section is the real story. Native LinkedIn feed posts, the kind people write and share organically, nearly tripled their organic search traffic over the same period. Google appears to be rewarding authentic social content while punishing open publishing platforms that were gamed.

The Mechanics of the Abuse

The playbook was simple. LinkedIn has a domain rating of 99 in Ahrefs, rank #5 globally. Publishing a Pulse article gave you a page on a DR 99 domain with zero effort. No backlinks needed. No domain age. No topical authority. Just sign up, write (or have GPT write), and publish.

In the SEO world, this became known as "parasite SEO." You're parasitically using someone else's domain authority to rank content that your own site could never rank. The economics were irresistible:

Lily Ray, a well-known SEO researcher, tested this in March 2025. She published an article to LinkedIn Pulse targeting specific keywords. It ranked on SERPs the same day. That confirmed what the data already showed: the authority transfer was real and nearly instant.

The problem wasn't that people published professional articles on LinkedIn (that was always the point of Pulse). The problem was that the volume of off-topic, spammy, and outright harmful content overwhelmed the legitimate uses. When 3 of your top 20 pages are about AI nudifiers and another is leaked celebrity nudes, Google has no choice but to act.

Google's Response: The Site Reputation Abuse Policy

Google announced its site reputation abuse (SRA) policy in March 2024 and began enforcement in May 2024. The policy specifically targeted content published on high-authority domains with little editorial oversight from the host site, primarily to exploit ranking signals.

The enforcement came in two waves. First, manual actions against the most egregious cases: Forbes Advisor, CNN Underscored, WSJ Buy Side, and coupon sections across European publishers. Then algorithmic devaluation that caught the long tail, including LinkedIn Pulse.

LinkedIn wasn't given a public manual action like Forbes. Instead, the decline was gradual and algorithmic. Google simply stopped trusting Pulse pages at scale. The de-indexing accelerated through 2025: from 6.3M indexed Pulse pages in April 2024 to 481K by February 2026.

What This Means If You Published on Pulse

If you have legitimate Pulse articles (actual thought leadership, not affiliate spam), the picture is mixed. LinkedIn Pulse still carries about 2.4M monthly organic visits, so some pages still rank. But the odds are worse than they were, and getting worse monthly.

The practical takeaways:

Native LinkedIn posts now outperform Pulse for Google visibility. The /posts/ section went from 2.5M to 7.0M monthly organic visits while Pulse dropped 90%. If you want Google to index your LinkedIn content, a well-crafted native post appears to be the better vehicle in 2026.

LinkedIn Newsletters appear unaffected. Newsletters live under a different URL structure and carry explicit subscriber relationships, which may signal legitimacy to Google in ways that open Pulse publishing does not.

The "publish on LinkedIn for backlinks" strategy is dead. The pages that survived are ones with legitimate engagement, real comments, and actual topical relevance. If your Pulse article was just a republished blog post with affiliate links, it's probably already gone from the index.

LinkedIn itself has moved on. In January 2026, LinkedIn published "How LinkedIn Marketing Is Adapting to AI-Led Discovery," explicitly acknowledging that traditional SEO-driven traffic has declined by up to 60% for B2B topics. Their new strategy focuses on AI citations and brand visibility rather than organic search traffic.

Limitations

Yuval Halevi

Helping SaaS companies and developer tools get cited in AI answers since before it was called "GEO." 10+ years in B2B SEO, 50+ cybersecurity and SaaS tools clients.