A state with a reason, not a gap
LinkedIn analytics API: two post surfaces, and what Postdom has verified
Nothing yet, and this page exists to say exactly that: every LinkedIn analytics API field Postdom models is recorded as unverified, because nothing has been observed about what comes back for a post published this way. Unverified is a recorded state with a reason attached — not zero, not a dash, and not a claim that LinkedIn withholds the data. What LinkedIn itself documents is a separate question with a real answer, and it is below: post analytics split across two surfaces, with different metrics and different scopes on each, and only one of them exposing a save count.
What can the LinkedIn analytics API return through Postdom?
Every field Postdom models, with the state it is actually recorded in. There is no number in this table, because there is no verified number to show.
| Field | State | What Postdom returns, and why |
|---|---|---|
| ViewsThe view count in a normalized LinkedIn performance snapshot. | Unverified | Postdom has not verified this field's LinkedIn coverage. It stays null, and null is not zero.linkedin.views is unverified; no evidence-backed value is available yet. |
| LikesThe like count in a normalized LinkedIn performance snapshot. | Unverified | Postdom has not verified this field's LinkedIn coverage. It stays null, and null is not zero.linkedin.likes is unverified; no evidence-backed value is available yet. |
| CommentsThe comment count in a normalized LinkedIn performance snapshot. | Unverified | Postdom has not verified this field's LinkedIn coverage. It stays null, and null is not zero.linkedin.comments is unverified; no evidence-backed value is available yet. |
| SharesThe share count in a normalized LinkedIn performance snapshot. | Unverified | Postdom has not verified this field's LinkedIn coverage. It stays null, and null is not zero.linkedin.shares is unverified; no evidence-backed value is available yet. |
| SavesPostdom's saves field. LinkedIn exposes a save count on its member creator surface and not on the enumerated organization schema, so whether an equivalent exists depends on which of the two a post belongs to. | Unverified | Postdom has not verified this field's LinkedIn coverage. It stays null, and null is not zero.linkedin.saves is unverified; no evidence-backed value is available yet. |
| Watch timePostdom's total watch-time field, in seconds. | Unverified | Postdom has not verified this field's LinkedIn coverage. It stays null, and null is not zero.linkedin.watch_time_s is unverified; no evidence-backed value is available yet. |
| Average watch percentagePostdom's average percentage-watched field. | Unverified | Postdom has not verified this field's LinkedIn coverage. It stays null, and null is not zero.linkedin.avg_watch_pct is unverified; no evidence-backed value is available yet. |
| Completion percentagePostdom's completed-view percentage field. | Unverified | Postdom has not verified this field's LinkedIn coverage. It stays null, and null is not zero.linkedin.completion_pct is unverified; no evidence-backed value is available yet. |
| Follower deltaAn account-level follower change field, not exact per-post attribution. | Unverified | Postdom has not verified this field's LinkedIn coverage. It stays null, and null is not zero.linkedin.follower_delta is unverified; no evidence-backed value is available yet. |
No row here carries a verification date, because no row here has been verified. A date on one would be a stamp borrowed from work done for a different destination. The reason text is the same sentence the API returns beside the null value, taken from the record rather than rewritten for the page.
These rows carry no external citation, and that is the honest position rather than an omission. Each one points at an internal verification record, because there is nothing public to link to: no response has been observed, so there is no evidence a reader could check. Contrast the section below, where every LinkedIn claim carries a first-party link — the asymmetry is real and it is the right way round. A citation here would have to be a document about LinkedIn, and no document about LinkedIn can establish what Postdom receives.
What LinkedIn’s API documents it can return
Every row above is a statement about Postdom. This section is a statement about LinkedIn, and the two are worth separating: LinkedIn documents its retrieval contract in full, and it is not one contract but two. Which one applies depends on whether the post belongs to an organization page or to a member creator — and they expose different metrics.
| Surface | Endpoint | Permission | Fields | Retention | Save count? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organization page post | organizationalEntityShareStatistics | rw_organization_admin — ADMINISTRATOR only | impressionCount, uniqueImpressionsCount, likeCount, commentCount, shareCount, clickCount, engagement | Returns share data only within the past 12 months, on a rolling window. | No — the ShareStatisticsData schema is enumerated in full at seven fields and has no save field. |
videoAnalytics | r_organization_social — ADMINISTRATOR or DIRECT_SPONSORED_CONTENT_POSTER | VIDEO_VIEW, VIEWER, TIME_WATCHED, TIME_WATCHED_FOR_VIDEO_VIEWS | VIDEO_VIEW, VIEWER and TIME_WATCHED_FOR_VIDEO_VIEWS are unavailable after six months. TIME_WATCHED carries no such statement. | No — this endpoint returns video metrics only. | |
| Member creator post | memberCreatorPostAnalytics | r_member_postAnalytics — “Retrieve your posts and their reporting data.” | IMPRESSION, MEMBERS_REACHED, RESHARE, REACTION, COMMENT, POST_SAVE, POST_SEND, LINK_CLICKS, PREMIUM_CTA_CLICKS, FOLLOWER_GAINED_FROM_CONTENT, PROFILE_VIEW_FROM_CONTENT | This document states no retention limit. That is silence, not a guarantee that the data is kept. | Yes — POST_SAVE, “Number of times the requested entity was saved.” The only LinkedIn endpoint documenting a save count. |
memberCreatorVideoAnalytics | r_member_postAnalytics — “Retrieve your posts and their reporting data.” | VIDEO_PLAY, VIDEO_VIEWER, VIDEO_WATCH_TIME | VIDEO_PLAY and VIDEO_VIEWER are unavailable after one year of post creation. VIDEO_WATCH_TIME carries no such statement. | No — this endpoint returns video metrics only. |
LinkedIn states the mapping directly: the field Watch Time in its interface equals the TIME_WATCHED_FOR_VIDEO_VIEWS type in the API. Each call carries a Linkedin-Version header in YYYYMM form; it is required, not defaulted. These readings are from the current default of LinkedIn's documentation, moniker 202608. The eleven member metric types exist from 202604 onward; earlier versions document five. LinkedIn's sunset notice for version 202508 gives 17 August 2026. Read from LinkedIn’s own documentation on , not from a relay’s platform matrix — a supplier’s claim about itself is not first-party evidence about the platform.
None of this moves a row above, and that is the point. A contract is a ceiling on what could arrive, never proof that it does. Postdom does not call LinkedIn directly; it reads what a relay hands it, so knowing what LinkedIn can emit says nothing about what actually comes back. Promoting a metric on this evidence would claim a value nobody has seen returned. It also rules out the opposite shortcut: because the member surface documents a save count, declaring saves permanently unavailable for LinkedIn would be false on one of the two branches.
Two kinds of absence, and why they are not the same
Postdom records more than one way of not knowing something, and the difference decides what you can conclude. One is a statement about the platform. The other is a statement about us.
| State | A fact about | What it asserts | Live example | What would settle it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not published | LinkedIn does not state this fact anywhere first-party. | The maximum video duration for organic posting through the API. Postdom went looking, found three figures, and established that each is scoped to something else. | A first-party LinkedIn statement, or an observed API rejection that pins the real bound. | |
| Unverified | Postdom | Postdom has not established what happens, and says so rather than guessing either way. | Every metric on this page. Nothing has been observed about what comes back for a LinkedIn post published through Postdom. | Three things would each move a row, in increasing order of strength: establishing which of LinkedIn's two surfaces a Postdom post belongs to, reading the relay's own LinkedIn analytics contract at first hand, and observing a real per-platform response. Only the last clears the bar. |
Collapsing the two is the mistake worth avoiding. Read as one, this page would say either that LinkedIn withholds engagement data or that Postdom checked and found none. Neither is true, and both would be more flattering to us than the truth: nobody has looked yet. The specifications page carries the other kind — a limit LinkedIn genuinely does not publish.
Why the field is null and not zero
Zero is a measurement. Null is the absence of one. A post that nobody watched and a post whose views were never observed are different facts, and writing both as 0 destroys the difference in the place it matters most — the average.
So an unverified field stays null, carries its reason, and is left out of aggregates rather than counted as nothing. A dashboard that quietly treats unmeasured as zero reports a decline that never happened, and the more destinations it covers the worse the error gets.
This is the same rule everywhere in Postdom, not a special case for LinkedIn. How availability states are recorded sets out each state and what it licenses you to say.
What would change this page
An observed response. Not a roadmap entry, and not time passing.
Establishing what a LinkedIn performance response actually contains is provider-contract research, which belongs to the marketplace lane rather than to this page. When that classification exists, these states move with it and the evidence record moves too. Until then the honest answer is the one above.
There is deliberately no date here. Publishing an estimate of when a fact will be verified is the same error as publishing the unverified fact — it invites a reader to plan around something nobody has established.
Questions about LinkedIn metrics
What metrics does the LinkedIn analytics API return?
That depends on which of two surfaces owns the post, and they are different contracts. An organization page post is read through organizationalEntityShareStatistics, whose schema is enumerated in full at seven fields: impressionCount, uniqueImpressionsCount, likeCount, commentCount, shareCount, clickCount and engagement, with video figures on a separate videoAnalytics endpoint. A member creator post is read through memberCreatorPostAnalytics, which documents eleven metric types including POST_SAVE, POST_SEND, LINK_CLICKS and PROFILE_VIEW_FROM_CONTENT. Postdom has verified none of them for its own posts.
Does the LinkedIn analytics API expose saves?
On one surface, yes. LinkedIn's member creator post analytics documents POST_SAVE as “Number of times the requested entity was saved.” The organization share statistics schema is enumerated in full and has no save field. So the answer is not a single yes or no — it turns on whether the post belongs to a page or to a member, and Postdom has not established which applies to its own posts.
Does Postdom report LinkedIn analytics?
Not today. Every field Postdom models for LinkedIn is recorded as unverified, which means no evidence-backed value is available yet. The fields stay null in the API and are left out of aggregates rather than being counted as zero.
Does unverified mean LinkedIn does not provide the data?
No, and the distinction is the point. Unverified is a statement about Postdom, not about LinkedIn: nothing has been observed about what comes back. A claim that LinkedIn never exposes a metric is a different and stronger classification, and Postdom does not make it here.
Why is an unverified metric null instead of zero?
Because zero is a measurement and null is the absence of one. A post with no views and a post whose views were never observed are different facts, and rendering both as zero destroys the difference and quietly drags every average down. Postdom keeps the field null, attaches the reason, and excludes it from aggregates.
When will LinkedIn metrics become available?
There is no date, and this page will not offer one. The classification moves when provider-contract research establishes what a LinkedIn performance response actually contains — that work belongs to the marketplace lane and it either exists or it does not. Publishing an estimate of when a fact will be verified would be the same error as publishing the unverified fact.
Can I still publish to LinkedIn through Postdom?
Yes. Publishing and measurement are separate: Postdom publishes supplied finished video to LinkedIn, and reports the publish outcome per destination. What it does not do is report engagement numbers for that post, because it has not established what LinkedIn returns.