Why is that of course? I mean I know the reason but what makes you say that the legacy chain with much better SEO is obvious to have worse engagement than Hive?
Maybe the SEO is better on Steem, but the overall marketing and the application availability (for example Splinterlands, which alone generates a big amount of engagement) is better on the Hive blockchain, and the one man leadership on the Steem blockchain is a huge disadvantage.
And the Hive blockchain users advertise the Hive blockchain by doing offline activities too, for example making boreholes, putting stickers to various places, things, including cars.
And as I currently see, most people, who use either of these blockchains are (or at least probably will be) also aware of the history of both of these blockchains. Some people use both of these blockchains.
Most of them (especially those, who registered before the Hardfork) use mostly the Hive blockchain.
And the new Steem blockchain users also see these facts/things (if they care even a little bit about the platform they use).
I generally don't understand why you'd compare engagement levels on web2 platforms with Hive when you could compare it to literal copies of it instead.
Because those are properly working social networks.
Generally I compare the Hive blockchain to both. But actually it is pointless to compare the Hive blockchain to the copies, because those are also not properly working social networks.
A quick look at your post history tells me you could use some engagement on your posts
Nowadays I (and most of the Hive blockchain users) rarely receive comments on the Hive blockchain, except on Splinterlands card giveaway post.
Nowadays I also rarely post on the Hive blockchain.
Nowadays I spend very little time online, and it is much better to post the unique content (for example about living with a Harris's hawk in a cave/tent living community, or about amateur radio related things) in the proper Facebook groups to reach people, who actually care.
In addition to the comments, people sometimes write private messages too to me.
They ask how I am, how is my bird, if I have help, they write useful/helpful tips, they answer my questions, and they encourage me to post more often.
Most people here would make 0 income on web2 but I'm sure many of them would get more engagement than here just cause there's a lot more users there.
Not necessarily because of the higher numbers, but because of the generally different approach (natural platform usage) of the users.
Most people get more engagement even in a small private Facebook group (for example with a few hundred users).
Especially with unique content, which is naturally standing out on a properly working social network.
You do not have to fight for visibility.
You do not have to promote your posts.
People see your posts, and they actually care.
Natural platform usage.
Currently this is one of the rarest things on the Hive blockchain.
It's only natural because everyone is there mate, if hive would be facebook naturally they would all be here and consume content and our content would be a lot better with people paying for subscriptions, top authors not only getting hive rewards but also millions in adrevenue, etc.
I don't understand why you think comparing the two platforms and then painting out engagement to be bad is okay when at current stage they are so different and to then also start this whole discussion in trying to dismiss a new project attempting to make the platform a better place for everyone involved.
At scale if Hive were to grow you'd see a ton more engagement and with scaled up prices many would be able to reward them with their own votes instead of having to rely on forfeiting part of their author rewards to do so. We are currently 9 cent off of all time low hive price so for most users, yourself included, you can't even upvote a comment more than a couple cents if even that.