lol the last sentence. Here's the thought behind all publications being in the program. The idea is that each publication owner/editor should nominate the best of the best. Medium calls them cover stories. As in, the entire publication (or Medium) is a magazine -- now choose the cover stories. The ones that stand out.
As nominators, we get 5 nominations per week. If a publication is big and gets a lot of submissions, they likely have more than one editor. So once the program rolls out site wide, each editor will get to nominate. It's supposed to be a way to surface the best posts in every publication.
Right now, small publications that don't get 5 high quality submissions per week can pick from the writing pool in general. But the overall idea is to have publications serve as the first layer of determining quality and forwarding those to curators who make the final choice.
But you're right -- the posts that don't get chosen for boost are going to see less traffic. That's the hiccup in the program. Because if a post is not boosted, it should still go to the writer's following. And I'm not convinced that's actually happening.
I can see some of the authors I'm following (even if the stories aren't boosted), but I've heard many reports of people not seeing posts at all from their favorite authors. I was especially amazed when James Finn said he couldn't even see your Glass Castle book review, even though it WAS boosted!! And he had been scrolling for a couple of hours down his feed, too.
My fiction has always had poor views, often below 20, sometimes even below 10 views. But it's shocking to hear that this is happening to unboosted nonfiction, too. On the other hand, some fiction writer friends who had several stories boosted, have gotten into the $100 club for the first time ever! I'm still trying to write fiction that can be boosted, but have not been successful yet! And hence the views are still poor.
The real kicker with Jim was that he's an editor for the publication. Some publication owners and editors complain that their feed is full of their stories. His is the opposite. He follows me and the publication, and is an editor, but still didn't see it. Would be nice if they could fix the feeds so we actually see people we follow.
I mostly see stories with thousands of claps. I’m lucky to get 50 and that’s usually from one person. I’ve never been boosted but I’ve written practically nothing since the program started so I haven’t expected to be.
I had a weird experience where I hit publish on a story in one of my pubs and then was away for two days. When I came back, the only view that writer had was me. She has 2500 followers. I submitted it for a boost and her views shot up instantly. That was an aha moment for me. Why didn't her viewers see that piece while I was away?
Like all platforms, Medium doesn’t like paying writers. We have to assume that every “improvement” is designed to keep a lid on overall creator income. The current model keeps the masses humble. It looks to us as if everyone else is doing great, so if we’re not, we must not be good and so don’t deserve to do well. It’s an illusion. The only time anyone reads my stuff anymore is if I make a comment they like and decide to read one of my stories.
Yeah, right now it probably does feel that way. It's why they ultimately want all editors to be able to nominate. The real goal is to use boost as a way to downvote the bad stuff like AI written stories, money grifts, etc. But when there's only a handful of boosters, it's easy for a relatively small group of people to keep nominating the good writers they know.
For me, I have 3 publications so there's plenty to boost among my own writers and I don't have to venture out and find new writers unless my own writers haven't submitted enough to fill up my nomination spots for the month.
In my opinion, the one sticking point is that the curators are still a small group and they have the final say.
One of the things they told us in the boost beta group is that part of the beta is watching to see how human nature factors in and how to build in fail safes for the ways people will try to abuse the program once it opens to everyone. I found that interesting.
That was an interesting read. It doesn't help that "boost" means different things in different places. On Facebook, it means paying them to let your own followers see the post. On other platforms, it means pay them to show it to god knows who, because that's a secret. On Medium, it's supposed to mean wider distribution to people who follow the tags you used but don't necessarily follow you. Whether or not it actually works that way is a matter of opinion it seems. Honestly, it's kind of a mess out there.
I've had a couple stories that weren't boosted still get decent views. There have been one or two that I thought were quality pieces that didn't get seen much at all. I expect that the folks at the platform will continue to refine the program.
I'm really glad to hear that Walter. I have, too and I'm grateful for that. But I've also seen some just sit there with no views until I nominate them and then wham, it's like someone turned on the tap. I'm very glad not to be one of the tech people trying to get all the wheels and levers operating in sync.
I guess I got thrown out of Medium at both the right and wrong time. I could invent some spooky scenarios for my characters under that new tag. But I think Tree Langdon is right that the boost program is high school styled favoring of the "popular" people. We need less of that and more of celebrating everyone's achievements across the web.
On banned books week: I despise anyone who wants to ban anyone from reading any type of book they choose, and I will tirelessly aid anyone working to suppress wrongful censorship. If you want to see what happens when a great art form is mutilated because of censorship, you should read what I wrote about television animation in the '70s and '80s in my book "America 'Toons In". Trust me: if these kind of people get what they want, we all suffer.
I remember seeing a sketch that my comedy heroes Wayne & Shuster did about the Trojan Horse story- at one point a guy comes out of nowhere carrying a placard shouting "Ban The Horse!" rhythmically, in a completely ridiculous way. (This was made in the '70s so I think it was meant as a parody of people protesting the war in Vietnam). That kind of sums up how I feel about people trying to ban books.
Celebrating everyone's achievements is a slippery slope. In theory, it sounds fair and kind. But take this scenario. There's a guy on Medium who uses AI to churn out a new post every day. There's another writer who leans into hate posts. Real easy to turn a person's name around and slip by the name detection, but we all know who Dim Tenning is. That writer targeted me once. Should their "achievements" be celebrated equally to someone who is writing good posts that aren't AI and aren't getting clicks by making fun of and hating on other writers?
What about the person who doesn't bother to read submission guides and sends a post called "7 ways to improve your memory" to a personal essay publication or sends self help tips to a book review pub. What about a person who submits a fake book review by copying the text from Good Reads and Amazon. Should they be equally celebrated? Those are all things that happen every day. Owning 3 publications, I see them every day. Should they all be celebrated equally?
I honestly don't check views anymore since the August changes - however I do see a diff in earnings in the one that got boosted after the latest algorithm tweaking vs prior to that - I think we are going through yet another change
That's not what I meant. We celebrate all the hard-working people writing good stuff and not the AI derived crap. Boosting can help, but the cream should still rise to the top because of its merit. I am just not sure if the Medium algorithm- or any of them, for that matter- cares about that if it gets in the way of them making money.
I know that's not what you mean, David, and I'm not trying to be a jerk. Truly, I'm not. It's just that once we say "not everyone" or "good stuff" then someone has to decide what that means. I've had writers send me a link and say this is so good, please boost it. Then I go read it and it starts in passive language, has so much purple prose and sometimes doesn't even have a point they're making. More journal entry than essay. And they think they *are* hard working people writing good stuff.
At the same time, crap sometimes does float to the top while truly good pieces don't get seen for whatever reason. That's why Medium published the list of pubs in Boost. So people who can't seem to be seen know where to have a shot at getting a nominator to see their work.
You're right that Medium is a corporation and wants to make money. They make money when readers keep paying $5/month to read. It's not a perfect world by any means. I wish it was. But it's not.
Now more than before, I so value humans who got businesses off the ground that curate good writing and commission good illustrations. I get more publications in the mail now, because it's a pleasurable experience paging through what their teams assembled, even the advertisements are informative of who has the money to run the world right now. Yes, it's hard living in a world of "gatekeepers" but many of those gatekeepers really hustled to create a place or publication bundle that meets someone's standards of quality.
I agree and thank you for saying that. That's the part people don't stop and think of -- the so called "gatekeeper" has a vision in mind of something they're trying to create. It sucks when I have to reject 80% of the submissions to On Reflection, but they aren't reflections. They are fine essays, but lack the pondering and reflective feel I am going for. Same happens with History of Women. If I accepted everything submitted, I would have a Wikipedia or History.com knock off. When I find a writer who "gets" what I'm trying to create, I could just about weep that someone sees what I'm trying to build and likes it and wants to be part of it. Because most people just get mad about being rejected. They take it personally instead of understanding that it's not rejecting "them" personally, it's rejecting one story that isn't a fit.
And I wish I could give a comment 50 claps here. lol
I haven't had the privilege of being boosted so I have nothing to compare it with, but from what I understand, it's definitely helpful. I appreciate you championing for our stories, Linda.
Thanks, Karen. Here's a little tip that was helpful to me. I forget where I read it. If you go to any publication and put /trending after the url, you'll see the posts that are currently getting a lot of views. It helps me see what's resonating with readers. I just take a look and then walk away and let my bean mull on it for a while, see what ideas I come up with.
Hi Linda. One of the biggest pubs stated recently that in August, Medium decided authors who publish a lot of articles do not fit the new "strategic focus" of the platform, and they are reducing exposure and payment for them. The pub goes on to say they analyzed the data, and found that indeed, writers who publish often get lower views and less income. The opposite of what the advice used to be. Whether it's strategic focus, or a method to cut the overhead, cannot be determined from the data.
I recently published a 5-part series based on my writings from Hurricane Ian (it destroyed my home and possessions), and the posts all went up within a few hours. It went completely dead. Nothing. Now, I'm no Win Demmy, but a zero on my posts was more than unusual. I've decided to believe their theory the algo's are suppressing authors based on count, and that there are exceptions built in. Unfortunately I have a daily biz-based series going that directly conflicts with that, but I am not willing to redirect while they cast about trying to find a path forward.
A side note: I have followed TD for a long time, and never see him in my feed anymore.
I think you're right that posts that don't stand alone will struggle more. Medium tried doing a "series" thing a couple years back and it didn't work very well. I'm not sure which publication announced that, but I'm in the boost beta program and have not heard anything official from Medium saying that frequent publishing is a no-no. That doesn't mean it's not true, just that I haven't heard anything official about it.
Writers I interact with more and want to read more don't show up in my feed. I have to specifically go to their profile page to find anything, even when they publish daily. This is wrong. The algorithm should be taking into consideration who I'm reading, who I'm responding to the most, and plucking them from those I'm following as preferred reads. But that's not happening.
I get the "For You" section, to help me broaden my horizon. But the "Following" tab should reflect who I'm trying to follow. It doesn't. Maybe it prioritizes people I follow that get more views? But they're not MY views. I shouldn't have to dig to keep up with the people I want to read every story that comes out. Even if they only publish once a month. That doesn't feel like they're giving me (as a reader) what I actually want.
Hey Linda. Very thought-provoking post as usual. So on the topic of "banned books" can you tell me whether "Huck Finn" or "To Kill a Mockingbird" are on the current banned list? I think they had been. If so, I could definitely make an argument in their support.
On the topic of boosts, I had the random good fortune of getting boosted--actually 4 times and it was glorious. That might be it though for the rest of my Medium "career" because the competition is fierce and who even knows what nominators are looking for other than compelling well-written stories? All of us "think" we do that.
But as to the impact on the rest of my articles, my views have been lower than usual and by a lot. I have surmised that it's because it has been impacted by the boost program, but I don't know that. In the end, I've decided that the best thing for me to do is to continue to put my best writing out there and see how it lands. I don't want to write with the almighty power of boost overly-influencing what I write. I want to write what seems interesting and important to me. Here's an example: How many regrets does the average person harbor in their lifetime? From there I can imagine some very interesting ways to go, and I will write that because it interests me. But, I am often confounded about where to submit. Not sure where to get guidance on that...
Thanks as always. You do great writing and great thinking.
Here's a bit of irony for you -- I was feeling used and abused because many of my articles and such were not getting seen, certainly not by the number of followers I have and I just could not make sense of views, reads, $ earned and so forth. This is over the last few months or so. So all of these emotions ended up in a Poem about Sour Grapes and our general reluctance to voice our thoughts and such - and it promptly got Boosted! I was thrilled. Now I've had several recent article boosted so I am a happy camper. But I've also been stymied by the Medium system as a whole. Why one article gets 11 views and the next 127. I know I have shared this with others and have gotten many nods in reply. But I continue pushing and polishing and hoping for the best. Cheers, Linda
lol the last sentence. Here's the thought behind all publications being in the program. The idea is that each publication owner/editor should nominate the best of the best. Medium calls them cover stories. As in, the entire publication (or Medium) is a magazine -- now choose the cover stories. The ones that stand out.
As nominators, we get 5 nominations per week. If a publication is big and gets a lot of submissions, they likely have more than one editor. So once the program rolls out site wide, each editor will get to nominate. It's supposed to be a way to surface the best posts in every publication.
Right now, small publications that don't get 5 high quality submissions per week can pick from the writing pool in general. But the overall idea is to have publications serve as the first layer of determining quality and forwarding those to curators who make the final choice.
But you're right -- the posts that don't get chosen for boost are going to see less traffic. That's the hiccup in the program. Because if a post is not boosted, it should still go to the writer's following. And I'm not convinced that's actually happening.
I can see some of the authors I'm following (even if the stories aren't boosted), but I've heard many reports of people not seeing posts at all from their favorite authors. I was especially amazed when James Finn said he couldn't even see your Glass Castle book review, even though it WAS boosted!! And he had been scrolling for a couple of hours down his feed, too.
My fiction has always had poor views, often below 20, sometimes even below 10 views. But it's shocking to hear that this is happening to unboosted nonfiction, too. On the other hand, some fiction writer friends who had several stories boosted, have gotten into the $100 club for the first time ever! I'm still trying to write fiction that can be boosted, but have not been successful yet! And hence the views are still poor.
The real kicker with Jim was that he's an editor for the publication. Some publication owners and editors complain that their feed is full of their stories. His is the opposite. He follows me and the publication, and is an editor, but still didn't see it. Would be nice if they could fix the feeds so we actually see people we follow.
I mostly see stories with thousands of claps. I’m lucky to get 50 and that’s usually from one person. I’ve never been boosted but I’ve written practically nothing since the program started so I haven’t expected to be.
I had a weird experience where I hit publish on a story in one of my pubs and then was away for two days. When I came back, the only view that writer had was me. She has 2500 followers. I submitted it for a boost and her views shot up instantly. That was an aha moment for me. Why didn't her viewers see that piece while I was away?
Like all platforms, Medium doesn’t like paying writers. We have to assume that every “improvement” is designed to keep a lid on overall creator income. The current model keeps the masses humble. It looks to us as if everyone else is doing great, so if we’re not, we must not be good and so don’t deserve to do well. It’s an illusion. The only time anyone reads my stuff anymore is if I make a comment they like and decide to read one of my stories.
I think you're right. The stories that aren't boosted don't get near the views they would considering my followers and publication followers.
The boost program feels a lot like high school, where the popular kids (boosters) get attention because they're the gateway to more views.
And writers who have great stories to tell are left floundering, trying to find a way to be noticed.
Sigh. High school again, seriously?
Yeah, right now it probably does feel that way. It's why they ultimately want all editors to be able to nominate. The real goal is to use boost as a way to downvote the bad stuff like AI written stories, money grifts, etc. But when there's only a handful of boosters, it's easy for a relatively small group of people to keep nominating the good writers they know.
For me, I have 3 publications so there's plenty to boost among my own writers and I don't have to venture out and find new writers unless my own writers haven't submitted enough to fill up my nomination spots for the month.
In my opinion, the one sticking point is that the curators are still a small group and they have the final say.
And some are using their powers to reward loyalty. Guess that happens. Human nature.
One of the things they told us in the boost beta group is that part of the beta is watching to see how human nature factors in and how to build in fail safes for the ways people will try to abuse the program once it opens to everyone. I found that interesting.
I think it's already being abused. Good that they're considering ways to measure it
where are you thinking about moving your writing? Are you considering publishing?
That's my impression every time I see an opportunity to "boost" on platforms. For example LinkedIn displays a "Boost" button along with a text prompt to "pay more to boost this post" and metrics showing my post only has one impression so far, despite my 200 followers. It feels like extortion. Besides, who will see my stories if I *do* boost? It's all a mystery to the outsider. I found this intriguing: The Media Buyer's Bill of Rights https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/389466/is-it-time-for-a-media-buying-bill-of-rights.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=readmore&utm_campaign=131797&hashid=fZuCajb6QtOVsmo013JESw
That was an interesting read. It doesn't help that "boost" means different things in different places. On Facebook, it means paying them to let your own followers see the post. On other platforms, it means pay them to show it to god knows who, because that's a secret. On Medium, it's supposed to mean wider distribution to people who follow the tags you used but don't necessarily follow you. Whether or not it actually works that way is a matter of opinion it seems. Honestly, it's kind of a mess out there.
Oh, my!
I've had a couple stories that weren't boosted still get decent views. There have been one or two that I thought were quality pieces that didn't get seen much at all. I expect that the folks at the platform will continue to refine the program.
I'm really glad to hear that Walter. I have, too and I'm grateful for that. But I've also seen some just sit there with no views until I nominate them and then wham, it's like someone turned on the tap. I'm very glad not to be one of the tech people trying to get all the wheels and levers operating in sync.
As always, your Medium wisdom for writers is helpful, current, and to the point. Cheers!
Thanks, Jan. :)
I guess I got thrown out of Medium at both the right and wrong time. I could invent some spooky scenarios for my characters under that new tag. But I think Tree Langdon is right that the boost program is high school styled favoring of the "popular" people. We need less of that and more of celebrating everyone's achievements across the web.
On banned books week: I despise anyone who wants to ban anyone from reading any type of book they choose, and I will tirelessly aid anyone working to suppress wrongful censorship. If you want to see what happens when a great art form is mutilated because of censorship, you should read what I wrote about television animation in the '70s and '80s in my book "America 'Toons In". Trust me: if these kind of people get what they want, we all suffer.
I remember seeing a sketch that my comedy heroes Wayne & Shuster did about the Trojan Horse story- at one point a guy comes out of nowhere carrying a placard shouting "Ban The Horse!" rhythmically, in a completely ridiculous way. (This was made in the '70s so I think it was meant as a parody of people protesting the war in Vietnam). That kind of sums up how I feel about people trying to ban books.
Celebrating everyone's achievements is a slippery slope. In theory, it sounds fair and kind. But take this scenario. There's a guy on Medium who uses AI to churn out a new post every day. There's another writer who leans into hate posts. Real easy to turn a person's name around and slip by the name detection, but we all know who Dim Tenning is. That writer targeted me once. Should their "achievements" be celebrated equally to someone who is writing good posts that aren't AI and aren't getting clicks by making fun of and hating on other writers?
What about the person who doesn't bother to read submission guides and sends a post called "7 ways to improve your memory" to a personal essay publication or sends self help tips to a book review pub. What about a person who submits a fake book review by copying the text from Good Reads and Amazon. Should they be equally celebrated? Those are all things that happen every day. Owning 3 publications, I see them every day. Should they all be celebrated equally?
I honestly don't check views anymore since the August changes - however I do see a diff in earnings in the one that got boosted after the latest algorithm tweaking vs prior to that - I think we are going through yet another change
That's not what I meant. We celebrate all the hard-working people writing good stuff and not the AI derived crap. Boosting can help, but the cream should still rise to the top because of its merit. I am just not sure if the Medium algorithm- or any of them, for that matter- cares about that if it gets in the way of them making money.
I know that's not what you mean, David, and I'm not trying to be a jerk. Truly, I'm not. It's just that once we say "not everyone" or "good stuff" then someone has to decide what that means. I've had writers send me a link and say this is so good, please boost it. Then I go read it and it starts in passive language, has so much purple prose and sometimes doesn't even have a point they're making. More journal entry than essay. And they think they *are* hard working people writing good stuff.
At the same time, crap sometimes does float to the top while truly good pieces don't get seen for whatever reason. That's why Medium published the list of pubs in Boost. So people who can't seem to be seen know where to have a shot at getting a nominator to see their work.
You're right that Medium is a corporation and wants to make money. They make money when readers keep paying $5/month to read. It's not a perfect world by any means. I wish it was. But it's not.
Now more than before, I so value humans who got businesses off the ground that curate good writing and commission good illustrations. I get more publications in the mail now, because it's a pleasurable experience paging through what their teams assembled, even the advertisements are informative of who has the money to run the world right now. Yes, it's hard living in a world of "gatekeepers" but many of those gatekeepers really hustled to create a place or publication bundle that meets someone's standards of quality.
I agree and thank you for saying that. That's the part people don't stop and think of -- the so called "gatekeeper" has a vision in mind of something they're trying to create. It sucks when I have to reject 80% of the submissions to On Reflection, but they aren't reflections. They are fine essays, but lack the pondering and reflective feel I am going for. Same happens with History of Women. If I accepted everything submitted, I would have a Wikipedia or History.com knock off. When I find a writer who "gets" what I'm trying to create, I could just about weep that someone sees what I'm trying to build and likes it and wants to be part of it. Because most people just get mad about being rejected. They take it personally instead of understanding that it's not rejecting "them" personally, it's rejecting one story that isn't a fit.
And I wish I could give a comment 50 claps here. lol
Also the really good ones commit themselves to discovery of new talent. That's time and attention, which technically is labor.
I haven't had the privilege of being boosted so I have nothing to compare it with, but from what I understand, it's definitely helpful. I appreciate you championing for our stories, Linda.
Thanks, Karen. Here's a little tip that was helpful to me. I forget where I read it. If you go to any publication and put /trending after the url, you'll see the posts that are currently getting a lot of views. It helps me see what's resonating with readers. I just take a look and then walk away and let my bean mull on it for a while, see what ideas I come up with.
Thanks Linda for the suggestion. I will do that.
Hi Linda. One of the biggest pubs stated recently that in August, Medium decided authors who publish a lot of articles do not fit the new "strategic focus" of the platform, and they are reducing exposure and payment for them. The pub goes on to say they analyzed the data, and found that indeed, writers who publish often get lower views and less income. The opposite of what the advice used to be. Whether it's strategic focus, or a method to cut the overhead, cannot be determined from the data.
I recently published a 5-part series based on my writings from Hurricane Ian (it destroyed my home and possessions), and the posts all went up within a few hours. It went completely dead. Nothing. Now, I'm no Win Demmy, but a zero on my posts was more than unusual. I've decided to believe their theory the algo's are suppressing authors based on count, and that there are exceptions built in. Unfortunately I have a daily biz-based series going that directly conflicts with that, but I am not willing to redirect while they cast about trying to find a path forward.
A side note: I have followed TD for a long time, and never see him in my feed anymore.
I think you're right that posts that don't stand alone will struggle more. Medium tried doing a "series" thing a couple years back and it didn't work very well. I'm not sure which publication announced that, but I'm in the boost beta program and have not heard anything official from Medium saying that frequent publishing is a no-no. That doesn't mean it's not true, just that I haven't heard anything official about it.
It's in this lengthy update, 5 or 6 paragraphs in:
https://medium.com/illumination/illuminations-mirror-submission-guidelines-2023-1a25ef5572e3
This is true and they are mad. On the flip side they were engaging sales articles. No loss
I accidentally deleted my preferences & not I’m seeing stories pop up as they are published of those I follow— that had stopped happening. I
Writers I interact with more and want to read more don't show up in my feed. I have to specifically go to their profile page to find anything, even when they publish daily. This is wrong. The algorithm should be taking into consideration who I'm reading, who I'm responding to the most, and plucking them from those I'm following as preferred reads. But that's not happening.
I get the "For You" section, to help me broaden my horizon. But the "Following" tab should reflect who I'm trying to follow. It doesn't. Maybe it prioritizes people I follow that get more views? But they're not MY views. I shouldn't have to dig to keep up with the people I want to read every story that comes out. Even if they only publish once a month. That doesn't feel like they're giving me (as a reader) what I actually want.
Hey Linda. Very thought-provoking post as usual. So on the topic of "banned books" can you tell me whether "Huck Finn" or "To Kill a Mockingbird" are on the current banned list? I think they had been. If so, I could definitely make an argument in their support.
On the topic of boosts, I had the random good fortune of getting boosted--actually 4 times and it was glorious. That might be it though for the rest of my Medium "career" because the competition is fierce and who even knows what nominators are looking for other than compelling well-written stories? All of us "think" we do that.
But as to the impact on the rest of my articles, my views have been lower than usual and by a lot. I have surmised that it's because it has been impacted by the boost program, but I don't know that. In the end, I've decided that the best thing for me to do is to continue to put my best writing out there and see how it lands. I don't want to write with the almighty power of boost overly-influencing what I write. I want to write what seems interesting and important to me. Here's an example: How many regrets does the average person harbor in their lifetime? From there I can imagine some very interesting ways to go, and I will write that because it interests me. But, I am often confounded about where to submit. Not sure where to get guidance on that...
Thanks as always. You do great writing and great thinking.
Here's a bit of irony for you -- I was feeling used and abused because many of my articles and such were not getting seen, certainly not by the number of followers I have and I just could not make sense of views, reads, $ earned and so forth. This is over the last few months or so. So all of these emotions ended up in a Poem about Sour Grapes and our general reluctance to voice our thoughts and such - and it promptly got Boosted! I was thrilled. Now I've had several recent article boosted so I am a happy camper. But I've also been stymied by the Medium system as a whole. Why one article gets 11 views and the next 127. I know I have shared this with others and have gotten many nods in reply. But I continue pushing and polishing and hoping for the best. Cheers, Linda