That’s been my experience too. In fact, yesterday I shared a video link on my “fan” page and Facebook showed it to exactly two people – and one of them was me (my personal page)! In fact, most of the time, Facebook shows my posts to no more than a third of my followers, and very often, less than that. “Original” updates written on my wall, or images posted by me (not shares or copied links) do somewhat better. But any reposted links, including links to my own blog posts, reach relatively few people. I think FB selects “reach” according to how many people have liked or commented in the past. In other words, they make it very difficult to expand your reach because they rarely show updates to people who have not recently interacted with your page.
My other beef with Facebook is the multiple functions of ‘Like’. Many, many people think that if they ‘Like’ a post or an image, that’s the same as liking the page. I have had to write specific instructions on how to click the big ‘Like’ button at the top in order to join the page. Didn’t the big Like button used to be ‘Join’ or ‘Become a Fan’ or something like that? It would be nice if they’d go back to that.
Also, FB seems to be getting very sloppy about spam. This morning, a porn post – complete with an explicit image – showed up on the wall of a group I belong to. Many people reported it either as spam or porn. I reported it as spam once, visited the page an hour later, and there was the porn image again. Several other people who reported it as porn said they got a response from FB saying that the post in question didn’t fit their definition of porn. Trust me, it was most definitely porn.
So I’m really starting to have my doubts about FB as a means of driving people to my website. My website stats show that a few of my followers do jump to my website on occasion, but given the confusion people have about ‘Like’, the difficulty of “reaching” them after they have figured out how to join the page, and the apparently growing risk of offending them with junk/spam/porn…I’m not sure it’s worth it.

Also forgot to add, just because someone does not click a link, does not mean it has not had value. In the online advertising world, well there are many different campaign models, but the old-school way was to charge per “impression” (how many times an ad rendered to a web page). Some advertisers, let’s say something kind of mundane like Clorox, would not expect to have a lot of clicks – the intent was to brand and have visual presence.

Posting a link in comments as a reply to someones comment/question is adding to a conversation the other has started, rather than a link in the original post.
I have noticed that links (big pic or small) seem to do less well, but i don’t have a way of tracking the effectiveness of links posted in comments.
It’s odd that a “call to action” is always recommended, but not it seems for links!

I’ve certainly spent too large a % of time on FB but am re doing my web site now. I’ve only just made a decision about how view the relationship between social media and my web site, now FB is my workbench, website my display cabinet. Its taken a while to come up with a visual image of this relationship.

I love your sharing nature, Roopa.
You post high-res versions of your artwork? Why?

Less “in your face” than what, Carlo?