I really appreciate that the new system allows us to write more narrative style articles. I did a few of those in my early days on Medium and they completely tanked. Now, they're some of my most popular articles. I appreciate that change enormously.
Same, Walter. I did a few in the early days and they tanked. May I also say I really truly love your writing. I'm so glad you're part of On Reflection. That publication is where I'm finding most of the posts to nominate and that makes me stupidly happy.
I appreciate that! I've been working on another post that I'll be delighted to submit to On Reflection. I just need to go out and take some pictures to go along with it.
Yeah I heard that in the past, how-to advice articles and listicles were the big money earners. But now, they highly favor personal stories, which is much more interesting to read, imo.
Sep 22, 2023·edited Sep 22, 2023Liked by Linda Caroll
When I saw Ariel's article, my brain said:
Don't read the comments
Don't read the comments
Don't read the comments
Dude, seriously: Don't read the comments
So of course I read them.
It might be just me, but I get the impression that a lot of the pushback from people is really just a cover for their missed expectations. So many writers (so, so many) came to the platform with dollar signs in their eyes, and no shortage of people happy to take their money to keep that ride going.
By and large, that didn't happen and it's easy to be annoyed when you realize you've been grinding it out for a few bucks here and there. It's easier to throw rocks than to admit that maybe-just maybe- you're writing isn't up to snuff. Or that you might need to change up your style. It stings. I get it.
There are also the dopes that capitalized on doom porn and meta content, that are frustrated because the tide of reader appetites has turned away from them. They didn't care who was "popular" as long as they were cashing checks. Now they're not, and it's crab in a bucket time.
Just to tease that out further, there's a set of folks offended that Boosters are being paid to do this work. I refuse to be ashamed that I'm compensated for my time/effort. I'm working to improve the user experience of "our" platform.
Better UX--> more readers--> more revenue for everyone to share.
First part made me laugh. Me too. Don't read the comments. But I read them. All 50+ of them. And you're right. It's a lot of rock throwing. Here's one of the problems. Comparing it to the old curation. People tell me (all the time) but I "always" used to get curated. Now I'm not getting boosted. But curation didn't mean squat. It meant we appeared on the tag pages. And if the response was good, maybe in the daily digest emails I used to get and don't anymore and I don't know why they stopped.
I used to read doom posts until I realized they were making me depressed. I don't know how many other people stopped. It's kind of like the first person industrial complex that rose for a while with sites like xo jane. Filled with personal trauma, and people read for a while but then it gets to them after a while. And it fizzles out.
Totally agree on getting paid. We already don't get paid to run publications. It's volunteer work and takes a lot of time. If I'm going to spend an hour combing through random stuff by tags and topics to find the stories that are well written, not doing that for free. I'd go build an etsy store first and sell some design and graphics. Time is precious. It's not all up for grabs free.
I think people are reacting more because now that we know who the boosters are, it feels like a high school popularity contest. Many of the top writers are hurting, myself included. Others have simply left. I have only had one story boosted this month and I suspect it was only boosted because it was getting high external traffic that could not be ignored. (And to be self-critical, it was not my best work.)
One booster told me that the boosters were purposely not promoting the top writers. There’s a lot of jealousy and spitefulness going on right now.
Other boosters see an article with tons of engagement and they assume it has already been boosted so they don’t nominate it. So the entire system is rewarding mediocre articles instead of articles with high engagement.
Either way, I don’t think it is a great strategy to punish writers who have had success. But that is exactly what many boosters are doing. The monetizing of boosted articles should be tiered. A. You get a bonus if an article you suggest gets boosted. B. You get an additional bonus if that article exceeds a certain number of reads.
That way, boosters would promote the best work instead of allowing petty jealousies to frame their decisions.
Wow, Carlyn. I don't know which booster said that, but it's not okay. You are a great writer and should not be struggling. Should. Not. One of my greatest issues is that history posts have a really low boost rate. It frustrated me. Oh sure, they'll boost stuff like 72 things invented by women, but they seldom boost actual history unless it has "mainstream" appeal. I've grumbled about that inside the beta program.
I agree that often boosters see a piece with high response and assume (wrongly) that it's been boosted. I find that annoying because those ARE the stories that should be boosted. if they are already getting response without a boost, they should get wider reach. Apparently they are working on a way for us to know.
Totally agree -- nominators should be promoting strong writing and not getting stuck in petty jealousies. But I do see it in other contexts. Like, we have a slack group for nominators to ask questions. One nominator was mad that a post got declined and asked if anyone had any feedback on why. So I told her the story was about an interesting topic but poorly written and had so many grammatical errors I wouldn't know where to start. She blocked me. lol. Christ. That's mature.
Sep 22, 2023·edited Sep 22, 2023Liked by Linda Caroll
In the past, I was able to churn out the pieces that have mainstream appeal to pay my bills but then also tackle more niche subjects as long as I was getting a revenue stream from the mainstream topics. Sort of a robbing Peter to pay Paul approach. I wrote about sex to pay the bills and history because it was my passion.
I am averaging about 20$ off of non-boosted pieces. I have never seen earnings that low for pieces with high engagement.
I obviously cannot name any names but I recently asked a booster to send me an example of what they boosted. The piece was virtually unreadable. It was so sterile I felt like I was sniffing rubbing alcohol to get through it. Last I checked it had 15 claps. It was a great topic though and had a stellar headline.
You can recognize strong writing so this skill seems innate to you. But I assure you, not all the Boosters can. And the Boosters who continuously nominate crap should be demoted. You can't have a system where people have that much power without having to show results.
Yup, I hear you. I've juggled what pays vs what I love, too. There is a plan in place to demote nominators who get a lot of declines. The general idea is that getting posts declined eventually will reduce the number of posts we can nominate. In theory, that sounds like a great plan. Because you're right -- not all nominators know what good writing is. And I don't mean personal taste, I mean grammatical errors and stuff that's a slog to read. But in practice, the concept of demoting people for getting declined too much makes me terrified to nominate history posts because the acceptance rate is lower than my other publications. And that sucks.
Linda, I am guessing that you have been my fairy booster for history pieces and I really appreciate it. Almost all my history pieces get boosted. But...they don't always make a lot. If I get a viral love/sex/feminism boost it stands to make 2k+ and can support my other pieces.
My history boosted pieces are only averaging about $100-200. Which is fine. But those big viral pieces offset my income.
Btw, Medium is my only income stream and I write fulltime on the platform. Like 40hrs+ a week.
lol. I am indeed your fairy booster. Or at least one of them. There's probably not just me. lol. I watch grim historian and your profile, too.
Last night I spent 90 minutes trying to figure out why a client was getting a checkout error on their site only to find out it was because they'd deleted something without telling me. Sometimes I wish I could write full time, too. I'm not sure it would be less stress, though, lol
I know you weren't talking to me, but as a fellow Booster, I would like to mention a couple of things.
1. I agree 110% w/Linda- if anyone is saying they're intentionally ignoring "big" writers, that's wrong--it's not what the program is designed to do, and it's next-level petty.
That said, we *are* being asked to surface work from writers that might be getting lost in the long shadow of people like Tim Denning. To be completely honest, I've had a great time finding new writers I had no idea existed because of this program. I believe other boosters have as well.
2. My criteria for making a nomination is pretty broad. Obviously it needs to be well put together technically (edited, formatted for online reading, no purple prose, etc. ). But what I'm really looking for is resonance.
Did this work hit me where I live?
Am I glad I spent the last 5-12 minutes of my life reading it, and am I better for it?
If the answers to those are both yes, I bookmark it. If I'm still thinking about it 24-36 hours later, it gets nominated.
That's it. Some authors have thousands of followers, others a handful. Some articles have come from the publication I edit, others were self-published. A few had a LOT of claps, a couple have had none.
Hah. That's what I do too, Kevin. Except I paste them in a word doc instead of bookmarking. I found a new writer that didn't have 100 followers once. Before they removed that. Gave her the followers she needed in 48 hours. Man, that felt good
Congratulations on the success of your new pub, but I too, love history.
The bottom line for me is to always remember that I don't own Medium. Medium allows me to contribute in any way I choose. At the end of the day, Medium will always have the final say. Placing all your writing assets on a platform you don't own or control will remain a slippery slope. Yes, you can make some money, and obviously many people do. I'm not one of them.
I enjoy finding (and these days I must search more) the writers who have something to say, say it well, and remain authentic and personable. I have had my fill of "how to get rich online or through Medium." I followed that carrot once- and only once. The internet is replete with gimmicks, schemes, and opportunities to separate you from your hard earned money.
Medium should never be your single source of distribution. If you are one of those gifted writers who can also appease the curators, write prolifically, and sustain that effort, go for it. My guess is that most of us write from the heart with a desire to reach an audience. How we create a viable plan to accomplish our writing goals and make money will depend on our financial needs and personal situation.
Expecting the Medium fairy to grant your wishes and take care of you is delusional. Like any profession, study the options, make a realistic evaluation of your goals, understand the benefits and pitfalls of every decision, and develop a plan that does not place you in a position of total dependence.
I don't typically rant in public, but your post reminded me, again, of how many people spend all their time searching for a pot of gold at the end of some elusive rainbow. If you want to write, and if you want to get paid, learn what it will take to do both.
Linda, I always appreciate your candor and feel your frustration. BTW: thanks for agreeing to be a "booster" because we all need someone to give us a hand up now and then.
For me, agreeing to be a nominator was instant. I can boost my writers?? Count me in. The scary part was allowing my participation to be public. I agree with so much of what you said, Kathryn. Well said.
Sep 22, 2023·edited Sep 22, 2023Liked by Linda Caroll
Well I am voicing these concerns because I know you are not doing this crap. But many are. And Medium needs to be aware of it. When a Booster literally brags that the top writers are going down...yeah, we have a problem.
Sorry, I meant to add that to my thread. I can't find my glasses right now!
Sep 22, 2023·edited Sep 22, 2023Liked by Linda Caroll
It's great to hear your pub is doing so well! I can only imagine the pressure boost nominators must be under - and it is interesting that eventually editors will also be able to get involved
Btw I do history on a diff platform - the thing is it firmly put me on the map for a year until the algo pulled the rug from under writers like myself - but yea, still hanging in there because I like writing those kind of articles too :)
I love history so much. I have a half-dead publication I'd created to store my stories when History of Yesterday left. I might breathe new life into that one, too.
Yes, that's the plan. I think once every publication can be in the program it will change a lot of things. Being part of the beta has been an eye opener for me.
I'm glad SOME people are still allowed to make money on Medium. As long as they don't piss off the technical staff in the comments, they should be fine...
I'm fine. I can spread my net wider now with my Substack newsletters. And besides: I can connect with most everyone I know on Medium on places other than Medium...
So far, since the Boost program got underway, I'm seeing much less clickbait and How to Medium articles and much more writing of substance. I'm sure it's not perfect, but I'm a fan.
I agree with most of that. I don't even want to know who can and can't boost because I personally don't want my writing to be influenced by that. I know of at least three people capable of nominating, and I wouldn't ask any of them to do me any favors- of the writing is good, it's good. If it's great, then it's great. There's no need for any of us to beg to be boosted; at most, our job is to focus on honing our craft and solidifying our writing voice. I sort of wish they'd never tell us who had that power; until everyone has it, that's a disparity I don't believe to be helpful in the editor-writer relationship.
Especially since y'all don't have the final say anyway.
A couple things I feel differently about, though: first off, I think letting readers guide us is a good thing. Medium keeps a pretty clean house, so it's not like letting the Twitter/X crowd decide what direction we'll go in. There's a little bit of elitism in the fact that if they can't abide by basic human rights and be civil, they don't belong. And I think that curbs a lot of the concerns about where readers could take us.
I could be naive about that, though.
Second, I'm not sure what stats they're looking at. That article I got boosted didn't make it to their "second phase" of boosts, but from the stats I can't understand why. That article was pulling in non members, which I would have thought was a good thing (for them, even if it didn't translate to more earnings for me). But there's a clear moment when the member reads began declining- despite the non member reads continuing to climb. The next day it became clear Medium wasn't boosting it anymore, and both lines tanked.
And that's fine for me, I am happy to have been boosted at all! This one article has me earning about a third of what I've made from the whole year on this account! But when I look at the stats it doesn't make sense why they stopped boosting it. I admit I don't have enough data to make a firm stance, but if a 72% read rate (and 1/3 of them non members) doesn't seem like an article that could potentially sway non members to become members, then I'm curious what exactly they're looking for..
But, again, I concede I don't have enough info to argue with conviction. I just ended up with a lot of questions, unsure about what metrics they're even looking for. Perhaps if I can manage to get other articles boosted, the picture may be clearer one day. But, by then, I have a feeling they'll have changed the rules all over again. 🤷♀️ We'll just have to keep plugging away, I suppose.
So true Linda. Spread the responsibility. Editors help maintain quality on Medium. I've read enough posts about how to make money on Medium or game the system. Great insights.
Thanks for this Linda. I chalk a lot of it to people not realizing just how big Medium is, and how few people are pulling levers. That translates into distrust.
That being said, however, I fully understand the frustration some of your commenters are expressing. I haven't been writing on here long, but started with only fiction. The first two got boosted, and in the months since then nothing. I'm pretty sure it didn't ALL suck. I have shifted over to a couple other projects in different categories, and am actively seeking another platform for my fiction. It makes me sad.
My feed has deteriorated over the last weeks, it's mostly the same old stuff over and over again by editors and pub owners. I don't know if it is, but it certainly feels like insider boosts. Thankfully every once in a while there's a Walter Rhein or Linda Caroll post.
It sounds like you have your hands full, Linda. It's all in the growing pain...Medium is still trying to get that perfect balance, which is almost impossible. Thanx for clarifying the ins and outs of what it means to write for Medium.
Just thanks for taking it on, OK? And keeping us honest about what we write.
I can't imagine what kind of pleasure one might get by sending in AI shit - what's the point? That you can hit 'submit' multiple times? Boy am I impressed.
I really appreciate that the new system allows us to write more narrative style articles. I did a few of those in my early days on Medium and they completely tanked. Now, they're some of my most popular articles. I appreciate that change enormously.
Same, Walter. I did a few in the early days and they tanked. May I also say I really truly love your writing. I'm so glad you're part of On Reflection. That publication is where I'm finding most of the posts to nominate and that makes me stupidly happy.
I appreciate that! I've been working on another post that I'll be delighted to submit to On Reflection. I just need to go out and take some pictures to go along with it.
I look forward to it. :)
Yeah I heard that in the past, how-to advice articles and listicles were the big money earners. But now, they highly favor personal stories, which is much more interesting to read, imo.
I'm getting so I no longer click on "3 reasons why..." articles, and yes, I used to write them.
When I saw Ariel's article, my brain said:
Don't read the comments
Don't read the comments
Don't read the comments
Dude, seriously: Don't read the comments
So of course I read them.
It might be just me, but I get the impression that a lot of the pushback from people is really just a cover for their missed expectations. So many writers (so, so many) came to the platform with dollar signs in their eyes, and no shortage of people happy to take their money to keep that ride going.
By and large, that didn't happen and it's easy to be annoyed when you realize you've been grinding it out for a few bucks here and there. It's easier to throw rocks than to admit that maybe-just maybe- you're writing isn't up to snuff. Or that you might need to change up your style. It stings. I get it.
There are also the dopes that capitalized on doom porn and meta content, that are frustrated because the tide of reader appetites has turned away from them. They didn't care who was "popular" as long as they were cashing checks. Now they're not, and it's crab in a bucket time.
Just to tease that out further, there's a set of folks offended that Boosters are being paid to do this work. I refuse to be ashamed that I'm compensated for my time/effort. I'm working to improve the user experience of "our" platform.
Better UX--> more readers--> more revenue for everyone to share.
First part made me laugh. Me too. Don't read the comments. But I read them. All 50+ of them. And you're right. It's a lot of rock throwing. Here's one of the problems. Comparing it to the old curation. People tell me (all the time) but I "always" used to get curated. Now I'm not getting boosted. But curation didn't mean squat. It meant we appeared on the tag pages. And if the response was good, maybe in the daily digest emails I used to get and don't anymore and I don't know why they stopped.
I used to read doom posts until I realized they were making me depressed. I don't know how many other people stopped. It's kind of like the first person industrial complex that rose for a while with sites like xo jane. Filled with personal trauma, and people read for a while but then it gets to them after a while. And it fizzles out.
Totally agree on getting paid. We already don't get paid to run publications. It's volunteer work and takes a lot of time. If I'm going to spend an hour combing through random stuff by tags and topics to find the stories that are well written, not doing that for free. I'd go build an etsy store first and sell some design and graphics. Time is precious. It's not all up for grabs free.
I think people are reacting more because now that we know who the boosters are, it feels like a high school popularity contest. Many of the top writers are hurting, myself included. Others have simply left. I have only had one story boosted this month and I suspect it was only boosted because it was getting high external traffic that could not be ignored. (And to be self-critical, it was not my best work.)
One booster told me that the boosters were purposely not promoting the top writers. There’s a lot of jealousy and spitefulness going on right now.
Other boosters see an article with tons of engagement and they assume it has already been boosted so they don’t nominate it. So the entire system is rewarding mediocre articles instead of articles with high engagement.
Either way, I don’t think it is a great strategy to punish writers who have had success. But that is exactly what many boosters are doing. The monetizing of boosted articles should be tiered. A. You get a bonus if an article you suggest gets boosted. B. You get an additional bonus if that article exceeds a certain number of reads.
That way, boosters would promote the best work instead of allowing petty jealousies to frame their decisions.
Wow, Carlyn. I don't know which booster said that, but it's not okay. You are a great writer and should not be struggling. Should. Not. One of my greatest issues is that history posts have a really low boost rate. It frustrated me. Oh sure, they'll boost stuff like 72 things invented by women, but they seldom boost actual history unless it has "mainstream" appeal. I've grumbled about that inside the beta program.
I agree that often boosters see a piece with high response and assume (wrongly) that it's been boosted. I find that annoying because those ARE the stories that should be boosted. if they are already getting response without a boost, they should get wider reach. Apparently they are working on a way for us to know.
Totally agree -- nominators should be promoting strong writing and not getting stuck in petty jealousies. But I do see it in other contexts. Like, we have a slack group for nominators to ask questions. One nominator was mad that a post got declined and asked if anyone had any feedback on why. So I told her the story was about an interesting topic but poorly written and had so many grammatical errors I wouldn't know where to start. She blocked me. lol. Christ. That's mature.
In the past, I was able to churn out the pieces that have mainstream appeal to pay my bills but then also tackle more niche subjects as long as I was getting a revenue stream from the mainstream topics. Sort of a robbing Peter to pay Paul approach. I wrote about sex to pay the bills and history because it was my passion.
I am averaging about 20$ off of non-boosted pieces. I have never seen earnings that low for pieces with high engagement.
I obviously cannot name any names but I recently asked a booster to send me an example of what they boosted. The piece was virtually unreadable. It was so sterile I felt like I was sniffing rubbing alcohol to get through it. Last I checked it had 15 claps. It was a great topic though and had a stellar headline.
You can recognize strong writing so this skill seems innate to you. But I assure you, not all the Boosters can. And the Boosters who continuously nominate crap should be demoted. You can't have a system where people have that much power without having to show results.
Yup, I hear you. I've juggled what pays vs what I love, too. There is a plan in place to demote nominators who get a lot of declines. The general idea is that getting posts declined eventually will reduce the number of posts we can nominate. In theory, that sounds like a great plan. Because you're right -- not all nominators know what good writing is. And I don't mean personal taste, I mean grammatical errors and stuff that's a slog to read. But in practice, the concept of demoting people for getting declined too much makes me terrified to nominate history posts because the acceptance rate is lower than my other publications. And that sucks.
Linda, I am guessing that you have been my fairy booster for history pieces and I really appreciate it. Almost all my history pieces get boosted. But...they don't always make a lot. If I get a viral love/sex/feminism boost it stands to make 2k+ and can support my other pieces.
My history boosted pieces are only averaging about $100-200. Which is fine. But those big viral pieces offset my income.
Btw, Medium is my only income stream and I write fulltime on the platform. Like 40hrs+ a week.
lol. I am indeed your fairy booster. Or at least one of them. There's probably not just me. lol. I watch grim historian and your profile, too.
Last night I spent 90 minutes trying to figure out why a client was getting a checkout error on their site only to find out it was because they'd deleted something without telling me. Sometimes I wish I could write full time, too. I'm not sure it would be less stress, though, lol
I don't know how you juggle both. I can barely manage 10 articles a month.
I know you weren't talking to me, but as a fellow Booster, I would like to mention a couple of things.
1. I agree 110% w/Linda- if anyone is saying they're intentionally ignoring "big" writers, that's wrong--it's not what the program is designed to do, and it's next-level petty.
That said, we *are* being asked to surface work from writers that might be getting lost in the long shadow of people like Tim Denning. To be completely honest, I've had a great time finding new writers I had no idea existed because of this program. I believe other boosters have as well.
2. My criteria for making a nomination is pretty broad. Obviously it needs to be well put together technically (edited, formatted for online reading, no purple prose, etc. ). But what I'm really looking for is resonance.
Did this work hit me where I live?
Am I glad I spent the last 5-12 minutes of my life reading it, and am I better for it?
If the answers to those are both yes, I bookmark it. If I'm still thinking about it 24-36 hours later, it gets nominated.
That's it. Some authors have thousands of followers, others a handful. Some articles have come from the publication I edit, others were self-published. A few had a LOT of claps, a couple have had none.
Hah. That's what I do too, Kevin. Except I paste them in a word doc instead of bookmarking. I found a new writer that didn't have 100 followers once. Before they removed that. Gave her the followers she needed in 48 hours. Man, that felt good
That's great criteria. I hope other Boosters do the same.
Congratulations on the success of your new pub, but I too, love history.
The bottom line for me is to always remember that I don't own Medium. Medium allows me to contribute in any way I choose. At the end of the day, Medium will always have the final say. Placing all your writing assets on a platform you don't own or control will remain a slippery slope. Yes, you can make some money, and obviously many people do. I'm not one of them.
I enjoy finding (and these days I must search more) the writers who have something to say, say it well, and remain authentic and personable. I have had my fill of "how to get rich online or through Medium." I followed that carrot once- and only once. The internet is replete with gimmicks, schemes, and opportunities to separate you from your hard earned money.
Medium should never be your single source of distribution. If you are one of those gifted writers who can also appease the curators, write prolifically, and sustain that effort, go for it. My guess is that most of us write from the heart with a desire to reach an audience. How we create a viable plan to accomplish our writing goals and make money will depend on our financial needs and personal situation.
Expecting the Medium fairy to grant your wishes and take care of you is delusional. Like any profession, study the options, make a realistic evaluation of your goals, understand the benefits and pitfalls of every decision, and develop a plan that does not place you in a position of total dependence.
I don't typically rant in public, but your post reminded me, again, of how many people spend all their time searching for a pot of gold at the end of some elusive rainbow. If you want to write, and if you want to get paid, learn what it will take to do both.
Linda, I always appreciate your candor and feel your frustration. BTW: thanks for agreeing to be a "booster" because we all need someone to give us a hand up now and then.
For me, agreeing to be a nominator was instant. I can boost my writers?? Count me in. The scary part was allowing my participation to be public. I agree with so much of what you said, Kathryn. Well said.
Well I am voicing these concerns because I know you are not doing this crap. But many are. And Medium needs to be aware of it. When a Booster literally brags that the top writers are going down...yeah, we have a problem.
Sorry, I meant to add that to my thread. I can't find my glasses right now!
Wait, what? I think I missed something. Scrolling down to find your thread.
It's great to hear your pub is doing so well! I can only imagine the pressure boost nominators must be under - and it is interesting that eventually editors will also be able to get involved
Btw I do history on a diff platform - the thing is it firmly put me on the map for a year until the algo pulled the rug from under writers like myself - but yea, still hanging in there because I like writing those kind of articles too :)
I love history so much. I have a half-dead publication I'd created to store my stories when History of Yesterday left. I might breathe new life into that one, too.
It's interesting to see how this is panning out. I wasn't aware that in time, all publishers will be included. It's good to hear.
Yes, that's the plan. I think once every publication can be in the program it will change a lot of things. Being part of the beta has been an eye opener for me.
Those were the circumstances under which I lost my Medium account earlier this month, Linda.
Omg, David, I did not know that happened. I'm so sorry to hear that. Wow.
I'm glad SOME people are still allowed to make money on Medium. As long as they don't piss off the technical staff in the comments, they should be fine...
I dear. I don't know what happened, but I'm sorry because it doesn't sound good
I'm fine. I can spread my net wider now with my Substack newsletters. And besides: I can connect with most everyone I know on Medium on places other than Medium...
I've missed you! I'm going to spend more time on SS.
Hugs
Linda
So far, since the Boost program got underway, I'm seeing much less clickbait and How to Medium articles and much more writing of substance. I'm sure it's not perfect, but I'm a fan.
I agree with most of that. I don't even want to know who can and can't boost because I personally don't want my writing to be influenced by that. I know of at least three people capable of nominating, and I wouldn't ask any of them to do me any favors- of the writing is good, it's good. If it's great, then it's great. There's no need for any of us to beg to be boosted; at most, our job is to focus on honing our craft and solidifying our writing voice. I sort of wish they'd never tell us who had that power; until everyone has it, that's a disparity I don't believe to be helpful in the editor-writer relationship.
Especially since y'all don't have the final say anyway.
A couple things I feel differently about, though: first off, I think letting readers guide us is a good thing. Medium keeps a pretty clean house, so it's not like letting the Twitter/X crowd decide what direction we'll go in. There's a little bit of elitism in the fact that if they can't abide by basic human rights and be civil, they don't belong. And I think that curbs a lot of the concerns about where readers could take us.
I could be naive about that, though.
Second, I'm not sure what stats they're looking at. That article I got boosted didn't make it to their "second phase" of boosts, but from the stats I can't understand why. That article was pulling in non members, which I would have thought was a good thing (for them, even if it didn't translate to more earnings for me). But there's a clear moment when the member reads began declining- despite the non member reads continuing to climb. The next day it became clear Medium wasn't boosting it anymore, and both lines tanked.
And that's fine for me, I am happy to have been boosted at all! This one article has me earning about a third of what I've made from the whole year on this account! But when I look at the stats it doesn't make sense why they stopped boosting it. I admit I don't have enough data to make a firm stance, but if a 72% read rate (and 1/3 of them non members) doesn't seem like an article that could potentially sway non members to become members, then I'm curious what exactly they're looking for..
But, again, I concede I don't have enough info to argue with conviction. I just ended up with a lot of questions, unsure about what metrics they're even looking for. Perhaps if I can manage to get other articles boosted, the picture may be clearer one day. But, by then, I have a feeling they'll have changed the rules all over again. 🤷♀️ We'll just have to keep plugging away, I suppose.
So true Linda. Spread the responsibility. Editors help maintain quality on Medium. I've read enough posts about how to make money on Medium or game the system. Great insights.
Thanks for this Linda. I chalk a lot of it to people not realizing just how big Medium is, and how few people are pulling levers. That translates into distrust.
That being said, however, I fully understand the frustration some of your commenters are expressing. I haven't been writing on here long, but started with only fiction. The first two got boosted, and in the months since then nothing. I'm pretty sure it didn't ALL suck. I have shifted over to a couple other projects in different categories, and am actively seeking another platform for my fiction. It makes me sad.
My feed has deteriorated over the last weeks, it's mostly the same old stuff over and over again by editors and pub owners. I don't know if it is, but it certainly feels like insider boosts. Thankfully every once in a while there's a Walter Rhein or Linda Caroll post.
It sounds like you have your hands full, Linda. It's all in the growing pain...Medium is still trying to get that perfect balance, which is almost impossible. Thanx for clarifying the ins and outs of what it means to write for Medium.
Just thanks for taking it on, OK? And keeping us honest about what we write.
I can't imagine what kind of pleasure one might get by sending in AI shit - what's the point? That you can hit 'submit' multiple times? Boy am I impressed.
Question. Will a writer submitting a story to your new pub be notified if it isn't accepted? Not asking about boosting.
Thanks,
Linda