You shouldn't really be writing so you can keep pace with the metrics of a platform. I have gotten very sick and tired of all the "writers" who think they need to publish a piece of meaningless crap once a day- or MORE than once a day- to meet self-imposed deadlines created by their need.
Nobody can produce material like that regularly and still have an audience, because you will alienate the one you have disrespecting them. This is why I only publish anywhere when I'm good and ready...and time permits.
" We’re talking about whether you should strive for quality. Here’s my question. If you’re not striving for quality, then why are you writing?" BOOM! 🔥🔥🔥 You are so write! 😉 Love it.
I have a question for you Linda - in a recent post a writer with a far bigger following (X times more than me) was talking about getting boosted - however if you checked out their profile, few of their regular posts have decent engagement. What does that mean? That their followers are not interested in what they have to offer? Or only the boosters see the quality of their work?
From what I see, having a readership base for your writing is more reliable than depending on boosts which seem to be rare. What do you think?
I didn't love everything about the way the Boost program was rolled out, but I absolutely favor human curation. I can't stand the crap algorithms dredge up. Worse, I can't stand it when people who would have gotten a C in any high school writing class amass huge followings on places like LinkedIn and want to tell decent writers how they can become more successful.
Except you can still find that crap on Medium. I do appreciate that the Boost program relies on two layers of human curation, and I believe writing overall has improved, but there is still something amiss. I don't agree with Linda that "writing for Boost" means "writing at a quality level that stands out." Often, that's true, but too often it's not. I still see a lot of that clickbait stuff on Medium, you know, the "How I Made 5K Last Month on Medium" or "One Weird Trick to Guarantee Boosting" posts. And you know what? Plenty of it is doing well, some of it even very well.
To play devil's advocate, a writer like the one Linda mentioned may have noticed the success of those kinds of posts and may have been compelled to emulate them. Like with any system with gatekeepers, what is selected for broader distribution has a huge impact on what is subsequently submitted. That's why TV series were so same-y for so long. I actually left a comment about this in Tony's post. His response to me was a bit concerning. He said that it must've been an issue with my feed and that their analytics told a different story. Either he was dismissing my claim, which I'd actually be fine with (he and his team have bigger fish to fry), or they're relying too much on analytics to determine the success of the Boost program and its ability to identify high-quality writing.
I'm just one user, of course, with a limited view. Maybe Tony was right. Maybe it's just my feed. The only wrinkle in that theory is that I don't see one-off clickbait posts. I see clickbait authors draw from the well over and over, publishing their writing in some of the most high-profile Medium publications. Why keep writing that kind of stuff? Because that kind of writing is being reinforced. They're making money. Overall, I think Medium is heading in the right direction, but there's enough of that clickbait stuff doing well to tell me that there's a problem with Medium's curation team -- either they're overworked and don't have the bandwidth to dig deep or, having been desensitized to algorithm-baiting in previous iterations of Medium (or just the internet in general), they are unable to consistently identify clickbait and other least-common-denominator writing.
I don't think the clickbait crap is being purposely fed to readers, though. I think that stuff gets clicks DESPITE, not BECAUSE OF the gatekeepers. If people have chosen to subscribe to those writers, they'll see their stuff. I see much less of that kind of thing than I used to. Medium knows I don't want to see it. I don't click on it (anymore). I am presented with quality stuff.
I can't say definitively what is happening, as I don't have backend access, but I would be surprised if some of that clickbait content I'm seeing is not being Boosted. It's doing too well not to be. Also, I find it disconcerting that Tony essentially told me that content is nigh extinct. My lying eyes, I guess.
I would bet every buck in my savings account that the clickbait is not being Boosted. What I'm seeing is that most good writing is not even being Boosted and zero bad content is. Will you share some examples of some clickbait content that's doing well?
Also keep in mind that if somebody has tons of engaged readers, they can get decent numbers without a Boost ... but they will not make very much money, because non-Boosted stories do not pay off like they used to.
I am making this judgment based on how hard it is to get my work Boosted and how hard it is to get others' work Boosted. The idea that some people out there might get Boosted for shitty clickbait is hard to believe. I imagine a few slip in here or there, but it must be very rare.
I don't think those stories are getting boosted. They're getting a lot of engagement--and popping up in feeds like yours-- because a LOT of people read them. We can kvetch all day long about how they're a stain on the platform, but the truth is that for better or for worse, they're popular.
You’re entitled to that belief, of course, but I’m not convinced those kinds of posts are not getting Boosted. See my thread with Michelle for more context. Or don’t. That’s fine too.
Well said. I used to feel the same way when I'd try to write an article to submit to a magazine. If you're really trying to get something placed in a magazine, you challenge yourself to be better. If I sit down and say "I want this to be boosted," the result is I spend more time on the article. A year ago, I probably only tried to get boosted on about half of my Medium articles. Now, I hope for a Boost every time, and if I don't get it, I know the article is still good quality and will probably perform well elsewhere. You just write better if you challenge yourself to write better.
What I can’t do is write with the check list of what someone tells me they are looking for - top of mind. When I write it has to move me - down in the gut and in my heart as well.
By the time I pick up a pen it has been formed into a story that’s bursting to get out of my head.
I write about what resonates with my tarnished dreams and 4-H champion values.
I’m still learning how to make the title so alluring you slide inside my story like it’s warm butter on hot bread.
I don’t get there often. But, I’m learning by reading you and many other writers that can make me get goosebumps.
The point may be that the gentleman who told you he’s not writing for Boost anymore doesn’t know exactly why he’s writing at all.
I don’t think you get better at something that doesn’t wake you up with a great idea you just have to write down. The next morning you look at it and there are two good sentences that you can use to improve the story you thought was finished yesterday.
I’ve pressed the button to publish because someone asked me for something I wrote in a response to be sent to their publication. When it gets there they are embarrassed to tell me they forgot the minimum is 500 words. I take it as - a think what can I do to make this story double the good - challenge.
That’s when I start searching through Morning Pages I have written for decades.
Time to mine the gold.
I end up creating a story including a poem that sings because it’s got memories and hope from today and years past in it.
It’s probably not going to get boosted. That is the part I accept just like winemakers know not every bottle ages the same.
I pay no attention to Tony, never have, but he stated the obvious about the internet as he usually does. But your view is spot on. When I am my most passionate and a story flows, I get the best comments and lately more and more financial support. Unfortunately Medium’s virtue of openness also means they contribute to the pollution of the internet. That can’t be helped. But I agree that reading writers that move you on a regular basis can be a learning experience. That’s why I think substack works so well. It automates delivery of those writers to our inboxes, unlike Following which only occasionally elevates a story into our feeds. Not to rank on Medium but they are feeling more and more a part of the problem than a contribution to the solution.
I still don't understand if I'm supposed to pitch to one of Medium's hosted publication editors ... or just publish to Medium, then submit that for a boost.
You have to submit your draft to one of the publications that have boost nomination privileges. They will nominate your story to be boosted if they think it's good enough. And if you're lucky the curators will accept that nomination.
You can't submit or nominate for boost yourself.
Most pubs don't accept stories that have already been published so no, don't publish yourself. Always submit the draft.
I've recently had the best two months on Medium since I started in 2019 - regarding boosted articles and $$$. But at the same time and this is the somewhat queasy part, those unboosted articles submitted around the boosted ones had THE worst distribution rates I've ever experienced. I mean I had better luck taking a story - folding it into an airplane - and sending it on its way toward Glendale. I like the Boost program. It has flaws, but then so do I (One). It's just the drought that occurs around boosted stories that's worrisome. Not sure what to do about it considering the dynamics of the program. 😊
Agree with what you say, putting out quality content should be the focus. But I still can't get my head around the fact that some pieces that im so proud off don't get a boost and then others that I just put out in a hurry get picked up. One of them is still being read every day and today I really thought "noooo stop reading that, read this instead its so much better 😭". Which for me just solidifies: write for myself, no one else.
I wouldn’t want to “write for a boost” I just write. And honestly, I just had a piece boosted that I personally hated after I reread it and it had already been published. I haven’t tried to submit to any publications yet. (I’ve been on the platform for about 3 mos) I wanted to get my feet wet first, and figure out the platform. But I’m at about a 40% boost rate for my articles posted right now.
I just don’t ever think it. I write. Hopefully someone will read. And I hope my mindset never changes about that
It’s how I’ve always written. Well before the internet was even around. So no. I’m not. I’m just writing the way I have for 30 years. Being marketable and writing to be marketed are very different things.
I understand what you’re saying. I just find the wording of “writing for the boost” so off putting, as if “the boost” should even be a factor in the way the words hit the page. But I do completely see what you’re saying here and in your article
If you define "writing for boost" as "writing for quality" it sounds different maybe? Because that's what it is. Writing so a human looks at it, says that's top quality writing, let's give that a boost for quality.
Is that true, though? I mean writing high quality content and writing easily consumable content are two different things. You could write for quality, but only have a TAM of 20 people, and that stuff is less likely to be exposed to more people. It sure would be nice to live in a world where the only metric is quality, but in your post you clearly state that certain things must be true for something to get boosted. That woman who wrote first person...won't get boosted. So if she wants to keep writing that stuff, it won't be boosted. You seem to contradict yourself in this article several times, stating that originality and quality are what matters, and then naming several things that will prevent you from getting boosted that have nothing to do with quality. What am I missing here?
Hey Russell, good to see you. High quality content and easily consumable content can be different but don't have to be. Any topic can be written well or poorly. For example, Medium has had a real issue with "make money writing" posts that offer no substance or real help. Given your field, you know better than most that there's no small amount of work behind success as a writer. Posts like that are a big part of why the boost nomination program was brought in, to downgrade low quality content, and move towards quality as a metric.
Having been a boost nominator for over a year, I can say that quality writing almost never has a TAM of 20 people because of the boost program. That's what it's there for. To send views to quality writing. One thing I probably should have been more clear on is that first person industrial complex (not first person pov) can be done well, just like any topic can be written well or written poorly. Just that most often it isn't. Are you on Medium? I looked and couldn't find you, just found posts by people enjoying your substack lol.
Sure, but you are thinking like a Desert, where "satisfying the most people in an audience" is the only metric that matters. When you say things like "Having been a boost nominator for over a year, I can say that quality writing almost never has a TAM of 20 people because of the boost program" you are exhibiting classic Desert thinking, which is great for Deserts, but there's plenty of writing I know that is incredible and has an audience of 20 people. In fact, most of my work I think is the best also has the smallest possible audience. The easily consumable stuff that is more mass market is a different kind of writing entirely and is not as rich, deep, or nuanced...because it can't be to reach the widest possible audience.
Deserts do, however, think that quality=biggest possible TAM, but they are only 40-50% of all writers. Most (50-60%) of writers don't think like that at all. Easily consumable content is almost always quality content, but most often than not quality content is not easily consumable content. I'm sure you haven't taken our ecosystems test, but everything you have said is a classic Desert, and that's exactly the kind of thing that works on Medium, KU, and other places.
If somebody says "I'm sick of writing for boosts", they are probably saying "I don't want to write easily consumable content that has the biggest market. I just want to write my weird little stories for my little audience", which is how the other four ecosystems generally think about writing.
I've met plenty of editors in my career that think "biggest possible audience = best quality writing", but the majority of writers don't think that way.
Glad you are having success on Medium. I'm not on Medium because I don't want to write for boosts, which is a very specific type of writing, unless somebody pays me well to do it. I'm very good at doing that kind of writing, but I don't want to do it, so I avoid places where I have to write easily consumable content for the widest possible market.
I have no dog in this fight. I just came to say that the way you are talking about audience and quality alienates 50-60% of writers who don't think, or have success, the way you are describing. I've had a very nice career avoiding that kind of writing, but respect those that do, and do try to hit the widest market when I can. I just don't worry if I don't, because it's not how I define quality.
Oh, I so wish you were right. I wish the people who say they are sick of writing for boost were writing weird little stories. I truly do. Because I love helping those people find their readers. Three of them come to mind by name, and while they aren't getting tens of thousands of views, they are growing in leaps and bounds. Because Medium has over a million members and there are people who want to read those weird stories. Nothing I love more than helping those people find their readers.
But alas, the people who say they are sick of writing for boost are not those people, much as I wish they were. When someone says that, I always go look. Inevitably, they are (not always but too often) the people writing the truth about weight loss and how to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And they're mad that the algorithm isn't floating them to the top like it used to before the boost nomination program. And if it's not that, it's first person industrial, which is a polite term for journal posts.
Fair point, and you've given me something to write about so thank you. Because now I want to find more of those people who think there is no audience for their weird little stories. :)
That's like the entirety of Substack. If I could sum up the difference between medium and Substack, it is that Medium is filled with Deserts and Substack is filled with Forests. Literally, almost the whole platform thinks like that and have been told that their whole lives.
You shouldn't really be writing so you can keep pace with the metrics of a platform. I have gotten very sick and tired of all the "writers" who think they need to publish a piece of meaningless crap once a day- or MORE than once a day- to meet self-imposed deadlines created by their need.
Nobody can produce material like that regularly and still have an audience, because you will alienate the one you have disrespecting them. This is why I only publish anywhere when I'm good and ready...and time permits.
" We’re talking about whether you should strive for quality. Here’s my question. If you’re not striving for quality, then why are you writing?" BOOM! 🔥🔥🔥 You are so write! 😉 Love it.
I have a question for you Linda - in a recent post a writer with a far bigger following (X times more than me) was talking about getting boosted - however if you checked out their profile, few of their regular posts have decent engagement. What does that mean? That their followers are not interested in what they have to offer? Or only the boosters see the quality of their work?
From what I see, having a readership base for your writing is more reliable than depending on boosts which seem to be rare. What do you think?
I didn't love everything about the way the Boost program was rolled out, but I absolutely favor human curation. I can't stand the crap algorithms dredge up. Worse, I can't stand it when people who would have gotten a C in any high school writing class amass huge followings on places like LinkedIn and want to tell decent writers how they can become more successful.
Except you can still find that crap on Medium. I do appreciate that the Boost program relies on two layers of human curation, and I believe writing overall has improved, but there is still something amiss. I don't agree with Linda that "writing for Boost" means "writing at a quality level that stands out." Often, that's true, but too often it's not. I still see a lot of that clickbait stuff on Medium, you know, the "How I Made 5K Last Month on Medium" or "One Weird Trick to Guarantee Boosting" posts. And you know what? Plenty of it is doing well, some of it even very well.
To play devil's advocate, a writer like the one Linda mentioned may have noticed the success of those kinds of posts and may have been compelled to emulate them. Like with any system with gatekeepers, what is selected for broader distribution has a huge impact on what is subsequently submitted. That's why TV series were so same-y for so long. I actually left a comment about this in Tony's post. His response to me was a bit concerning. He said that it must've been an issue with my feed and that their analytics told a different story. Either he was dismissing my claim, which I'd actually be fine with (he and his team have bigger fish to fry), or they're relying too much on analytics to determine the success of the Boost program and its ability to identify high-quality writing.
I'm just one user, of course, with a limited view. Maybe Tony was right. Maybe it's just my feed. The only wrinkle in that theory is that I don't see one-off clickbait posts. I see clickbait authors draw from the well over and over, publishing their writing in some of the most high-profile Medium publications. Why keep writing that kind of stuff? Because that kind of writing is being reinforced. They're making money. Overall, I think Medium is heading in the right direction, but there's enough of that clickbait stuff doing well to tell me that there's a problem with Medium's curation team -- either they're overworked and don't have the bandwidth to dig deep or, having been desensitized to algorithm-baiting in previous iterations of Medium (or just the internet in general), they are unable to consistently identify clickbait and other least-common-denominator writing.
I don't think the clickbait crap is being purposely fed to readers, though. I think that stuff gets clicks DESPITE, not BECAUSE OF the gatekeepers. If people have chosen to subscribe to those writers, they'll see their stuff. I see much less of that kind of thing than I used to. Medium knows I don't want to see it. I don't click on it (anymore). I am presented with quality stuff.
I can't say definitively what is happening, as I don't have backend access, but I would be surprised if some of that clickbait content I'm seeing is not being Boosted. It's doing too well not to be. Also, I find it disconcerting that Tony essentially told me that content is nigh extinct. My lying eyes, I guess.
I would bet every buck in my savings account that the clickbait is not being Boosted. What I'm seeing is that most good writing is not even being Boosted and zero bad content is. Will you share some examples of some clickbait content that's doing well?
Also keep in mind that if somebody has tons of engaged readers, they can get decent numbers without a Boost ... but they will not make very much money, because non-Boosted stories do not pay off like they used to.
How can you be so sure clickbait and the like aren't being Boosted? You only see which of your nominations are Boosted, correct?
I am making this judgment based on how hard it is to get my work Boosted and how hard it is to get others' work Boosted. The idea that some people out there might get Boosted for shitty clickbait is hard to believe. I imagine a few slip in here or there, but it must be very rare.
I don't think those stories are getting boosted. They're getting a lot of engagement--and popping up in feeds like yours-- because a LOT of people read them. We can kvetch all day long about how they're a stain on the platform, but the truth is that for better or for worse, they're popular.
You’re entitled to that belief, of course, but I’m not convinced those kinds of posts are not getting Boosted. See my thread with Michelle for more context. Or don’t. That’s fine too.
Fair enough, but meta stories (either about Boost or the platform in general) are not eligible to be Boosted.
OK, but those aren’t the only kinds of clickbait stories.
Well said. I used to feel the same way when I'd try to write an article to submit to a magazine. If you're really trying to get something placed in a magazine, you challenge yourself to be better. If I sit down and say "I want this to be boosted," the result is I spend more time on the article. A year ago, I probably only tried to get boosted on about half of my Medium articles. Now, I hope for a Boost every time, and if I don't get it, I know the article is still good quality and will probably perform well elsewhere. You just write better if you challenge yourself to write better.
100%
What I can’t do is write with the check list of what someone tells me they are looking for - top of mind. When I write it has to move me - down in the gut and in my heart as well.
By the time I pick up a pen it has been formed into a story that’s bursting to get out of my head.
I write about what resonates with my tarnished dreams and 4-H champion values.
I’m still learning how to make the title so alluring you slide inside my story like it’s warm butter on hot bread.
I don’t get there often. But, I’m learning by reading you and many other writers that can make me get goosebumps.
The point may be that the gentleman who told you he’s not writing for Boost anymore doesn’t know exactly why he’s writing at all.
I don’t think you get better at something that doesn’t wake you up with a great idea you just have to write down. The next morning you look at it and there are two good sentences that you can use to improve the story you thought was finished yesterday.
I’ve pressed the button to publish because someone asked me for something I wrote in a response to be sent to their publication. When it gets there they are embarrassed to tell me they forgot the minimum is 500 words. I take it as - a think what can I do to make this story double the good - challenge.
That’s when I start searching through Morning Pages I have written for decades.
Time to mine the gold.
I end up creating a story including a poem that sings because it’s got memories and hope from today and years past in it.
It’s probably not going to get boosted. That is the part I accept just like winemakers know not every bottle ages the same.
I pay no attention to Tony, never have, but he stated the obvious about the internet as he usually does. But your view is spot on. When I am my most passionate and a story flows, I get the best comments and lately more and more financial support. Unfortunately Medium’s virtue of openness also means they contribute to the pollution of the internet. That can’t be helped. But I agree that reading writers that move you on a regular basis can be a learning experience. That’s why I think substack works so well. It automates delivery of those writers to our inboxes, unlike Following which only occasionally elevates a story into our feeds. Not to rank on Medium but they are feeling more and more a part of the problem than a contribution to the solution.
I still don't understand if I'm supposed to pitch to one of Medium's hosted publication editors ... or just publish to Medium, then submit that for a boost.
You have to submit your draft to one of the publications that have boost nomination privileges. They will nominate your story to be boosted if they think it's good enough. And if you're lucky the curators will accept that nomination.
You can't submit or nominate for boost yourself.
Most pubs don't accept stories that have already been published so no, don't publish yourself. Always submit the draft.
The curators do search and boost on their own without a nominator. Idk from where they find them.
It’s very difficult to find unboosted stories to nominate that aren’t already in a pub. I’ve scoured medium to find them.
Me too, Michelle.
I've recently had the best two months on Medium since I started in 2019 - regarding boosted articles and $$$. But at the same time and this is the somewhat queasy part, those unboosted articles submitted around the boosted ones had THE worst distribution rates I've ever experienced. I mean I had better luck taking a story - folding it into an airplane - and sending it on its way toward Glendale. I like the Boost program. It has flaws, but then so do I (One). It's just the drought that occurs around boosted stories that's worrisome. Not sure what to do about it considering the dynamics of the program. 😊
Agree with what you say, putting out quality content should be the focus. But I still can't get my head around the fact that some pieces that im so proud off don't get a boost and then others that I just put out in a hurry get picked up. One of them is still being read every day and today I really thought "noooo stop reading that, read this instead its so much better 😭". Which for me just solidifies: write for myself, no one else.
I wouldn’t want to “write for a boost” I just write. And honestly, I just had a piece boosted that I personally hated after I reread it and it had already been published. I haven’t tried to submit to any publications yet. (I’ve been on the platform for about 3 mos) I wanted to get my feet wet first, and figure out the platform. But I’m at about a 40% boost rate for my articles posted right now.
I just don’t ever think it. I write. Hopefully someone will read. And I hope my mindset never changes about that
If you’re getting 40 percent of your stuff Boosted, you are writing for a Boost — you just didn’t know that’s what you were doing!
It’s how I’ve always written. Well before the internet was even around. So no. I’m not. I’m just writing the way I have for 30 years. Being marketable and writing to be marketed are very different things.
I get that you aren’t doing it on purpose, but you are indeed doing it.
I understand what you’re saying. I just find the wording of “writing for the boost” so off putting, as if “the boost” should even be a factor in the way the words hit the page. But I do completely see what you’re saying here and in your article
If you define "writing for boost" as "writing for quality" it sounds different maybe? Because that's what it is. Writing so a human looks at it, says that's top quality writing, let's give that a boost for quality.
Cheers.
Probably another reason why the creator of Mediums largest publication (Illumination) is moving to Substack, among many other reasons…
https://medium.com/illumination/why-my-wise-mentors-advised-me-80-substack-15-newsbreak-5-medium-for-my-writing-effort-e1bf33b4e4b7
Is that true, though? I mean writing high quality content and writing easily consumable content are two different things. You could write for quality, but only have a TAM of 20 people, and that stuff is less likely to be exposed to more people. It sure would be nice to live in a world where the only metric is quality, but in your post you clearly state that certain things must be true for something to get boosted. That woman who wrote first person...won't get boosted. So if she wants to keep writing that stuff, it won't be boosted. You seem to contradict yourself in this article several times, stating that originality and quality are what matters, and then naming several things that will prevent you from getting boosted that have nothing to do with quality. What am I missing here?
Hey Russell, good to see you. High quality content and easily consumable content can be different but don't have to be. Any topic can be written well or poorly. For example, Medium has had a real issue with "make money writing" posts that offer no substance or real help. Given your field, you know better than most that there's no small amount of work behind success as a writer. Posts like that are a big part of why the boost nomination program was brought in, to downgrade low quality content, and move towards quality as a metric.
Having been a boost nominator for over a year, I can say that quality writing almost never has a TAM of 20 people because of the boost program. That's what it's there for. To send views to quality writing. One thing I probably should have been more clear on is that first person industrial complex (not first person pov) can be done well, just like any topic can be written well or written poorly. Just that most often it isn't. Are you on Medium? I looked and couldn't find you, just found posts by people enjoying your substack lol.
Sure, but you are thinking like a Desert, where "satisfying the most people in an audience" is the only metric that matters. When you say things like "Having been a boost nominator for over a year, I can say that quality writing almost never has a TAM of 20 people because of the boost program" you are exhibiting classic Desert thinking, which is great for Deserts, but there's plenty of writing I know that is incredible and has an audience of 20 people. In fact, most of my work I think is the best also has the smallest possible audience. The easily consumable stuff that is more mass market is a different kind of writing entirely and is not as rich, deep, or nuanced...because it can't be to reach the widest possible audience.
Deserts do, however, think that quality=biggest possible TAM, but they are only 40-50% of all writers. Most (50-60%) of writers don't think like that at all. Easily consumable content is almost always quality content, but most often than not quality content is not easily consumable content. I'm sure you haven't taken our ecosystems test, but everything you have said is a classic Desert, and that's exactly the kind of thing that works on Medium, KU, and other places.
If somebody says "I'm sick of writing for boosts", they are probably saying "I don't want to write easily consumable content that has the biggest market. I just want to write my weird little stories for my little audience", which is how the other four ecosystems generally think about writing.
I've met plenty of editors in my career that think "biggest possible audience = best quality writing", but the majority of writers don't think that way.
Glad you are having success on Medium. I'm not on Medium because I don't want to write for boosts, which is a very specific type of writing, unless somebody pays me well to do it. I'm very good at doing that kind of writing, but I don't want to do it, so I avoid places where I have to write easily consumable content for the widest possible market.
I have no dog in this fight. I just came to say that the way you are talking about audience and quality alienates 50-60% of writers who don't think, or have success, the way you are describing. I've had a very nice career avoiding that kind of writing, but respect those that do, and do try to hit the widest market when I can. I just don't worry if I don't, because it's not how I define quality.
Oh, I so wish you were right. I wish the people who say they are sick of writing for boost were writing weird little stories. I truly do. Because I love helping those people find their readers. Three of them come to mind by name, and while they aren't getting tens of thousands of views, they are growing in leaps and bounds. Because Medium has over a million members and there are people who want to read those weird stories. Nothing I love more than helping those people find their readers.
But alas, the people who say they are sick of writing for boost are not those people, much as I wish they were. When someone says that, I always go look. Inevitably, they are (not always but too often) the people writing the truth about weight loss and how to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And they're mad that the algorithm isn't floating them to the top like it used to before the boost nomination program. And if it's not that, it's first person industrial, which is a polite term for journal posts.
I have nothing more to add, as I haven't had your lived experience.
Fair point, and you've given me something to write about so thank you. Because now I want to find more of those people who think there is no audience for their weird little stories. :)
That's like the entirety of Substack. If I could sum up the difference between medium and Substack, it is that Medium is filled with Deserts and Substack is filled with Forests. Literally, almost the whole platform thinks like that and have been told that their whole lives.
I think your eco stuff works only for specific genres. None of it applies to me.
Wise words. Thank you Linda.
I agree with all you say and really like the two suggestions at the end.