Twitter (X) Comments Scraper

Twitter (X) Comments Scraper turns known public post URLs into structured reply records that are ready to review, filter, and compare. Each record connects one reply to its source post and preserves the post and reply links, authors, text, publication times, media links, visible engagement counts, deletion indicator, and any collection message.

This dataset helps teams move beyond a post-level engagement total and inspect the conversation underneath it. Because each reply stays linked to the source post and the replying account, the results can support qualitative conversation review, visible-audience research, response-pattern analysis, and evidence gathering around a defined set of posts.

Data notes

Records come from publicly accessible Twitter conversations and reflect what the collector could see when the run took place. Each record represents one collected reply to one submitted source post, and the reply URL is used to remove duplicate records across retrieved result pages. Post and reply timestamps retain the source's displayed UTC offset. Like, retweet, reply, bookmark, and view counts are snapshots reported at collection time and can change afterward; they are preserved as reported text rather than recalculated values. Multiple source-post image addresses may be joined with vertical bars, while an empty reply-image value means no image was reported for that reply. Private, restricted, deleted, and sign-in-only content may not be available.

What the results look like

Each record is one collected public reply linked to its source post:

The output also includes “Source post URL,” “Source post ID,” “Post author name,” “Post author URL,” “Post timestamp,” “Post content,” “Post image URLs,” “Post likes,” “Post retweets,” “Post replies,” “Post bookmarks,” “Reply author URL,” “Reply image URL,” “Reply retweets,” “Nested replies,” “Deletion indicator,” and “Collection message.”

Use cases

• For conversation analysis, group records by “Source post URL” and review “Reply content” to identify recurring questions, objections, claims, and themes beneath each post.
• For visible-audience research, compare “Reply author name” and “Reply author URL,” then use “Reply URL” to inspect the original public context.
• For reply-engagement comparisons, evaluate “Reply likes,” “Reply retweets,” “Nested replies,” and “Reply views” together to identify which collected responses drew more visible interaction.
• For post-to-reply context review, compare “Post content” with “Reply content” and their respective timestamps to preserve the relationship between a statement and the responses it received.