Top Voice ·
How to become a LinkedIn Top Voice: what LinkedIn measures and what you control
Searching how to become a LinkedIn Top Voice returns plenty of tricks and almost no sources. This guide does the opposite: it separates what LinkedIn has published in its help centre and official blog from what is market observation, and says which is which every time.
With that separation you can decide what you control (topic, judgement, consistency, format) and what nobody controls (LinkedIn's final decision).
By Sheena de PunkVoice · Edited by Mario Pérez
What is a LinkedIn Top Voice?
Top Voice is the badge LinkedIn uses to flag people who add recognisable value on a topic. Its help centre describes two: the gold Community Top Voice, earned through contributions to collaborative articles that the community rates as helpful, and the blue LinkedIn Top Voices, awarded by invitation from the editorial team. Neither can be requested or bought.
Public source: LinkedIn's help centre documents both badges and how each one works (one is earned by contributing, the other is granted by invitation). The rest of this guide states clearly when it leans on that documentation and when it describes a pattern observed by people working on the platform.
What no official source documents is the actual threshold: how many contributions, how many positive ratings or how many followers. Anyone giving you an exact number is either inventing it or extrapolating from their own case.
- Documented by LinkedIn: there are two distinct badges, the gold community one and the blue editorial one.
- Documented by LinkedIn: the gold badge relates to contributions in collaborative articles rated by other people.
- Documented by LinkedIn: the blue badge cannot be requested, LinkedIn grants it.
- Not documented: numeric thresholds, timeframes and the weight of each signal.
How do you get it?
Short answer: by contributing with judgement in a specific area until other people rate those contributions as useful, in the case of the gold badge, and by building an editorial track record LinkedIn decides to highlight, in the case of the blue one. There is no form and no application.
On the public side, the gold badge runs through the collaborative articles LinkedIn opens by topic: you add your perspective to a specific section and the community marks it as helpful or insightful. LinkedIn introduced that format on its official blog in 2023 and has adjusted it since, so check the current state of the programme in its help centre before building a plan on top of it.
What is market observation rather than documentation: people who earn the badge tend to own a narrow territory (not marketing, but industrial B2B marketing), a profile consistent with it, and a sustained presence over months. It is a repeated pattern, not a published rule, which is why we label it as observation.
How long does it take?
Short answer: LinkedIn publishes no timeframe, so any number you read is a third-party estimate. The honest framing is months of sustained activity, accepting that the decision does not hang on a counter.
What is documented is that the badges are reviewed: they are not a lifetime title, and LinkedIn states they can be removed when the activity behind them stops. That periodic review is why a three-week sprint rarely leads anywhere.
As an observation, the most repeated pattern is boring: people contributing on the same topic for six or twelve months. We do not present it as a promise. PunkVoice does not earn the distinction for you and nobody can guarantee it.
Which kind of post counts most?
Short answer: the one that sparks real conversation among people who know the topic. For the gold badge, what counts in documented terms are contributions to collaborative articles, not feed posts.
That is a common confusion worth clearing up. Feed content builds your authority and your context, and it is what makes someone read you, but the public mechanism behind the gold badge is tied to contributions. Mixing the two leads to publishing a lot and wondering why nothing happens.
Market observation on which contributions land better: the ones that bring a concrete case (what you did, what failed, what you would measure differently) instead of restating the industry consensus. One contribution with real experience inside beats twenty correct and interchangeable ones.
- A contribution with your own data or case, in a topic where you have real experience.
- The answer that adds the missing nuance, not the one summarising what is already written.
- Short and concrete input, carrying one idea the reader did not have before.
- Consistency between the topic you contribute to and what your profile says.
Can it be sustained over time?
Short answer: yes, but not automatically. Because the badge is reviewable, it holds while there is still rated activity in that area, and it goes away when there is not.
Sustaining it is a routine, not a project with an end date. The hard part is not the start, it is still having something to say in month eight without repeating yourself and without sliding into the flat tone that floods the platform.
That is where a system helps. At PunkVoice, Sheena works as an intellectual partner: she cross-checks what you write today against your pillars and what you argued months ago, flags the cliché before you publish, and hands you uncomfortable questions. She does not write for you and does not manage any badge. She sharpens the judgement that does depend on you.
Create a free PunkVoice account and sharpen your judgement with Sheena
What has LinkedIn published and what is observation?
This section exists so you can audit the whole guide. On one side, what is verifiable in LinkedIn's documentation. On the other, what is a reading of the market that may age badly or simply differ in your sector.
If LinkedIn ever publishes concrete thresholds, this table will change. Until then, treating an observation as an official criterion is the fastest way to build a plan on sand.
| Claim | Status | Where to check it |
|---|---|---|
| There are two badges, Community Top Voice (gold) and LinkedIn Top Voices (blue) | Public | LinkedIn help centre, Top Voice badges section |
| The blue badge is granted by invitation and cannot be requested | Public | LinkedIn help centre |
| The gold badge relates to rated contributions in collaborative articles | Public | LinkedIn help centre and the format announcement on LinkedIn's official blog (2023) |
| Badges are reviewed and can be lost | Public | LinkedIn help centre |
| You need X contributions or Y followers | Not published | No official source states it |
| It usually takes months and works better with a narrow topic | Observation | Repeated pattern across badged profiles, unconfirmed by LinkedIn |
Which mistakes sink the attempt?
Short answer: chasing the badge instead of the topic. That mistake explains almost all the others.
The second common mistake is outsourcing the writing to a generic tool and publishing the output without passing it through your own judgement. The text comes out correct and perfectly interchangeable, which is the opposite of what a contribution rewards.
The third is spreading thin: contributing across fifteen topics builds authority in none. The fourth is treating the platform as your own noticeboard, without reading or replying to anyone.