Mar 3, 2023·edited Mar 3, 2023Liked by Linda Caroll
Curation is necessary on any platform with a low barrier to entry if the goal is for high-quality writing to rise to the top. Over-relying on an algorithm for content discovery and distribution inevitably trains writers to game the system for views which, in turn, leads to the regurgitation of the same "how to" and "tips for" articles ad infinitum. Maybe an algorithm with a sophisticated enough AI could manage it, but they haven't cracked that code yet.
I agree that curation wasn't a success the first time around. It's hard to know exactly why without having a clear picture of what went on behind the scenes, but one thing I know for certain is that Medium did a poor job of communicating why an article might be passed up for curation. They had some guidelines squirreled away somewhere, but I remember it didn't answer all of my questions. Some Medium writers had some good theories, but much of what they were sharing was conjecture. This lack of clear communication leads me to believe that Medium either didn't have clear criteria for curation or they didn't apply it evenly, which would serve to erode the effectiveness of curation over time. I also suspect they weren't discerning enough with curation.
I like the idea of incentivizing editors to find content that would get a successful boost, especially with guidelines in place disqualifying content that's clickbait, inflammatory, etc. As to your question about editors that "bomb Medium with everything that comes through their publication," I would hope that, if they are instituting anti-spam, anti-clickbait measures, they would penalize editors that engage in some of that same behavior. I also think that editors will naturally refrain from spamming since it behooves them to achieve a high submission-to-boost ratio. I guess time will tell. Thanks for putting these updates together.
You're absolutely right. When the algorithm was in charge all that how to stuff did float to the top and to the point it was too much. I hope they do find a way to manage the process better the second time around. But yes, time will tell for sure.
Good comment. My reply to it, starts far afield. Ever walk down the cereal aisle at your local supermarket? Good quality stuff there, right? Not! How did we get there - all sugar and added nutrients and low value? The answer - Advertising to kids. Kids demanded Capt. Crunch and Sugar Frosted Flakes. Moms bought them. Aisles now full of them. I know this for a fact because I was one of those kids in the 50s and 60s. Yep, me sitting in front of the tube watching cartoons.
Medium is filled with high sugar, low nutrition content that is generating Medium's profit. When 50-60-70% of the content is how to make money on Medium how does the platform cold-turkey the readers off this? I don't know if curation alone will turn the tide now. It might help, but whatever change is made can't hit their bottom line or they'll revert back to what they were doing before. Content change and revenue change has to be done concurrently to make this work. And I really hope they do that.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Joe. I agree that curation isn't a silver bullet, but I also believe that Medium is doomed in the long term if they don't address the content quality issue. I think their biggest issue with righting the ship now is that they've changed tactics so frequently that they've lost the trust of their user base. I actually really liked Medium at one point, and I'm rooting for them, but I lost confidence in them years ago. I don't envy Tony for the task he inherited.
Medium and Tony don't know what they want to be when they grow up, if ever. I have never seen or determined a clear mission for the platform. The actions I've observed over the past three years do not align to "to deepen readers' understanding of the world and to empower writers to share their best work and biggest ideas." Instead, I see ever changing responses to abuse of the system/algorithm.
Yup, ever changing response to abuse of the system is a real thing. Google changes their algorithm around 600 times/year because of the same reason. People trying to game the system. As frustrated as I get with Medium, I wouldn't want to be the one trying to deal with the people who try to game the system.
Google also changes the algorithm to keep paid ads in a prominent position - which is the other side of the coin, really. They want paid ads doing better than organic search. Keeping the paying customers happy. 🤗
In a span of 6-8 weeks, this went from "we're going to pay editors" to "we're going to pay editors to do our work for us, and on a contingency basis."
I think most people here can probably name the initial 15 publications involved. I'm still happy to be proven wrong, but this feels like the platform is going back to serious gatekeeping.
FWIW, I did apply to become a curator. There are a few authors that consistently put out quality work that more people should see. I'd love to help make that happen. None are writing about "morning manifesting," & "first principles thinking."
I have not applied yet, but I'm tempted. My publication is real tiny. Don't think I'd be anywhere near the top of the consideration list, but thinking of applying just to see. If you hear back, I'd love to know what they say! :)
I'll keep you posted! I did it just to see as well. can't hurt, right? Maybe more to see if he meant what he said about helping different voices/topics rise to the top.
I would think/hope these are the exact sort of pubs they're looking to elevate; decent size, quality writing, highly engaged readers, not the usual topics, etc.
I am excited for the changes although I am not sure what the heck they mean. I had 5 articles boosted. It didn't make it rain Benjamins but it was a small increase in earnings that I appreciated. I do think there is potential for Medium to grow more with history readers. History readers are avid readers and they tend to be more loyal.
History, music, books, art- all things I think there is a real appetite for. My concern is that (at least in this initial stage) that the majority of work being boosted will be productivity/life coach/health & wellness stuff.
Yeah, that's my fear too, Kevin. I hope it's not mostly self improvement and that kind of stuff that gets boosted. God, so much of it is just same old same old regurgitated advice.
Mar 3, 2023·edited Mar 3, 2023Liked by Linda Caroll
Honestly, I was very wary when I heard that certain editors are now gate-keepers. What if an editor just doesn't like you. It really seems like there has to be a more objective way to do things. This sounds like traditional publishing where a few editors control your ability to climb the ladder. And yeah, it seems like a conflict of interest, these editors obviously wanting to submit stories from their own publications. It sounds better just to pay objective, faceless curators.
Also, I saw one of your stories in a "staff pick." Can you say if that story has been "boosted"? Supposedly you can see it in your stats, the way we used to see "distributed." Just wondering...
The story that's a staff pick was not boosted. Medium posted that they have a list of staff picks for Women's History month. So I posted a comment saying I have a whole publication full of women's history and linked to it. They included a couple of stories from my History of Women publication, but mine was not boosted. Can't answer for the other, though I doubt based on looking in publication stats.
And yes, I do wonder if editors will be somewhat biased. I can see why they tried that route, though. Writers are less likely to hound editors than they were to hound Medium staff. My thought it they don't want to fall out of an editor's good graces, but had no problem hammering Medium staff for curation. I guess we'll see how it works. Not holding my breath, though.
Mar 3, 2023·edited Mar 3, 2023Liked by Linda Caroll
I doubt this is Stubblebine's idea. I think it is to reward editors who do tons of work on their publications. Like the editors on Illumination, who do heroic work. Being asked to write for them by the founder gave me the confidence boost I need. I'm willing to see what happens.
The potential problem I see with Illumination is that they publish pretty much everything that gets submitted. There's not a lot of internal curation going on. And while there's a lot of good writing there, there's also a lot of writing that really needed some editorial help. If they bomb Medium with all their submissions, I can see that getting overwhelming really fast.
They won't. That is why they encourage writers to start their one pubs. Tom Handy incubated there and he's got 17.5 followers. He admits he does better on Newsbreak.
I'm going to respectfully pushback a little here. I agree 110% about Illumination giving confidence to new writers--that's their north star. It's a great place to get started and receive that initial boost (no pun intended) a new writer needs to keep going.
The downside is that they'll publish just about anything, and everyone knows it. There's not a whole lot of evergreen or "boost-worthy" work being published (and if it is, it's getting buried under a blizzard of other submissions).
As for editors, the good Dr. would do well to hire 2-3 people to do the work FT. As it stands, he's profiting off of people's genuine desire to help other people. Just my .02.
I think every stupid Idea Tony Stumblebum comes up with should come out of his salary. Look on Glassdoor. Even the folks with real jobs at headquarters are tired of getting jerked around. Dude has not got a clue.
Wow, Denise. lol. I think there's some merit to Kathryn's comment that they have to deal with people constantly trying to game the system. For me, I just know I'll never have the blind optimism I used to have there. Been whacked one time too many for that. I know you have been, too. Wish there was a solution, but I don't think there is.
While I appreciate that Tony no longer thinks writers have to bring an audience, he was really adamant about them doing just that a few weeks ago. Dude - we can’t trust you if you take opposite stands within weeks, at least, not unless you admit that you are experimenting and are open to see what works, or doesn’t work.
I think I may have been a beneficiary of the soft launch Boost. My story was published on January 18 and overnight had over 1K reads. I am usually lucky to get 20 reads within the first couple of days, and honestly, the majority of my stories never reach 100 reads. Over time, I’ve had a couple hit over 1K. This story is now at 1.6K reads in about 6 weeks. That amazing for me - except - the total earnings are only $2.69.
I’m excited to get to share that with a pool of editors. Right.
Unless I'm missing something, if you got a 1K reads and made $2.69, sounds like most were external reads. Makes me wonder how Medium is boosting articles?
Maybe I wasn’t boosted. I just thought maybe I was part of the beta group without knowing it due to that huge jump in reads. No, I get very few external reads. Weird, right?
And just when I was thinking of giving Medium a teeny tiny try again! The rules keep changing and I don't have the foggiest idea on how to navigate through them. I feel as if I'm so far behind now everything is written in a different language.
Linda, thank you for trying to explain what's going on over there. I'm in awe of your reporting and your reasoning, but I have to admit I don't understand any of it. Not one bit.
Does this mean I should resurrect my old publication, Indelible Ink? Is that the only way I'll get my own blog posts noticed, since blogs appear to have to be in pubs now? I don't want to edit and curate a publication. I just want to get my writing seen and maybe make enough to pay my dues each month.
Or maybe not. Maybe I should just forget the whole thing and stick to Substack, where I'm sometimes seen and where I'm really the most comfortable. I'll be watching for more of your pieces on Medium, Linda, and maybe someday I'll begin to understand. LOL.
I applied for this a week ago since I'm an editor of a pub on Medium. I can see alot of issues with this. Medium will be bombarded again. But who knows, maybe it's worth trying. At least for now, Medium's the only viable place for unknown writers like me so.
"Authors shouldn’t be required to build their own audience or mailing list to share their ideas and knowledge. Often, the best writing comes from people who don’t want to be audience builders.” — Tony Stubblebine (source).
This is 180 from what Tony said a month or so ago. How does the CEO cope with these mood swings? First, we're chopped liver if we don't bring our own audience in and then, tut-tut, we'll do the heavy lifting for you with our boost program.
Reminds me of Detroit and the Big Three automakers constantly changing designs searching for the holy grail. What they did instead was constantly move away from what worked or in their case, what sold - because change got confused with innovation.
If you keep looking, up close and personal, at an elephant's butt, you'll never know what a cool pair of sunglasses would look like for them. Medium needs to step back and look at what worked in the past. My guess, is that they know what worked - for the writers, for the readers - just not for their bottom line - which is why they won't go there again. But I think that can be fixed. This platform can work for everyone - just needs a fresh pair of eyes.
I’ve long supported editing as a way to improve writing on Medium. I value all the people who have taken it upon themselves to create publications and was sorry when Medium undercut them. This might have problems, most changes do, but that’s what’s nice about Medium, it is the circle of making money. Medium changes, someone figures it out, makes some bucks, writes about it and creates a course to sell others on the approach, people sign up, copy and start making money, then the field gets saturated and Medium changes…. Rinse repeat.
Curation is necessary on any platform with a low barrier to entry if the goal is for high-quality writing to rise to the top. Over-relying on an algorithm for content discovery and distribution inevitably trains writers to game the system for views which, in turn, leads to the regurgitation of the same "how to" and "tips for" articles ad infinitum. Maybe an algorithm with a sophisticated enough AI could manage it, but they haven't cracked that code yet.
I agree that curation wasn't a success the first time around. It's hard to know exactly why without having a clear picture of what went on behind the scenes, but one thing I know for certain is that Medium did a poor job of communicating why an article might be passed up for curation. They had some guidelines squirreled away somewhere, but I remember it didn't answer all of my questions. Some Medium writers had some good theories, but much of what they were sharing was conjecture. This lack of clear communication leads me to believe that Medium either didn't have clear criteria for curation or they didn't apply it evenly, which would serve to erode the effectiveness of curation over time. I also suspect they weren't discerning enough with curation.
I like the idea of incentivizing editors to find content that would get a successful boost, especially with guidelines in place disqualifying content that's clickbait, inflammatory, etc. As to your question about editors that "bomb Medium with everything that comes through their publication," I would hope that, if they are instituting anti-spam, anti-clickbait measures, they would penalize editors that engage in some of that same behavior. I also think that editors will naturally refrain from spamming since it behooves them to achieve a high submission-to-boost ratio. I guess time will tell. Thanks for putting these updates together.
You're absolutely right. When the algorithm was in charge all that how to stuff did float to the top and to the point it was too much. I hope they do find a way to manage the process better the second time around. But yes, time will tell for sure.
Good comment. My reply to it, starts far afield. Ever walk down the cereal aisle at your local supermarket? Good quality stuff there, right? Not! How did we get there - all sugar and added nutrients and low value? The answer - Advertising to kids. Kids demanded Capt. Crunch and Sugar Frosted Flakes. Moms bought them. Aisles now full of them. I know this for a fact because I was one of those kids in the 50s and 60s. Yep, me sitting in front of the tube watching cartoons.
Medium is filled with high sugar, low nutrition content that is generating Medium's profit. When 50-60-70% of the content is how to make money on Medium how does the platform cold-turkey the readers off this? I don't know if curation alone will turn the tide now. It might help, but whatever change is made can't hit their bottom line or they'll revert back to what they were doing before. Content change and revenue change has to be done concurrently to make this work. And I really hope they do that.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Joe. I agree that curation isn't a silver bullet, but I also believe that Medium is doomed in the long term if they don't address the content quality issue. I think their biggest issue with righting the ship now is that they've changed tactics so frequently that they've lost the trust of their user base. I actually really liked Medium at one point, and I'm rooting for them, but I lost confidence in them years ago. I don't envy Tony for the task he inherited.
Medium and Tony don't know what they want to be when they grow up, if ever. I have never seen or determined a clear mission for the platform. The actions I've observed over the past three years do not align to "to deepen readers' understanding of the world and to empower writers to share their best work and biggest ideas." Instead, I see ever changing responses to abuse of the system/algorithm.
Yup, ever changing response to abuse of the system is a real thing. Google changes their algorithm around 600 times/year because of the same reason. People trying to game the system. As frustrated as I get with Medium, I wouldn't want to be the one trying to deal with the people who try to game the system.
All the more reason to play in your own backyard and build from there. Right?
Yup. pretty much that's it in a nutshell.
Google also changes the algorithm to keep paid ads in a prominent position - which is the other side of the coin, really. They want paid ads doing better than organic search. Keeping the paying customers happy. 🤗
I was curious, so I applied. Apparently, I applied for ‘becoming a verified author’. I thought that was the one for people who have written a book
lol Johnnie. Pretty sure they're different forms. The pairing of your publication name above your comment made me laugh.
In a span of 6-8 weeks, this went from "we're going to pay editors" to "we're going to pay editors to do our work for us, and on a contingency basis."
I think most people here can probably name the initial 15 publications involved. I'm still happy to be proven wrong, but this feels like the platform is going back to serious gatekeeping.
FWIW, I did apply to become a curator. There are a few authors that consistently put out quality work that more people should see. I'd love to help make that happen. None are writing about "morning manifesting," & "first principles thinking."
I haven't heard a word yet.
(big sigh)
I have not applied yet, but I'm tempted. My publication is real tiny. Don't think I'd be anywhere near the top of the consideration list, but thinking of applying just to see. If you hear back, I'd love to know what they say! :)
I'll keep you posted! I did it just to see as well. can't hurt, right? Maybe more to see if he meant what he said about helping different voices/topics rise to the top.
My pub has about 2k readers, so who knows?
Mine is a little smaller. It only has 1.2K, but who knows.
I would think/hope these are the exact sort of pubs they're looking to elevate; decent size, quality writing, highly engaged readers, not the usual topics, etc.
I am excited for the changes although I am not sure what the heck they mean. I had 5 articles boosted. It didn't make it rain Benjamins but it was a small increase in earnings that I appreciated. I do think there is potential for Medium to grow more with history readers. History readers are avid readers and they tend to be more loyal.
History, music, books, art- all things I think there is a real appetite for. My concern is that (at least in this initial stage) that the majority of work being boosted will be productivity/life coach/health & wellness stuff.
Yeah, that's my fear too, Kevin. I hope it's not mostly self improvement and that kind of stuff that gets boosted. God, so much of it is just same old same old regurgitated advice.
Carlyn, that's awesome. Was it history pieces that got Boosted? That would be something!!
Honestly, I was very wary when I heard that certain editors are now gate-keepers. What if an editor just doesn't like you. It really seems like there has to be a more objective way to do things. This sounds like traditional publishing where a few editors control your ability to climb the ladder. And yeah, it seems like a conflict of interest, these editors obviously wanting to submit stories from their own publications. It sounds better just to pay objective, faceless curators.
Also, I saw one of your stories in a "staff pick." Can you say if that story has been "boosted"? Supposedly you can see it in your stats, the way we used to see "distributed." Just wondering...
The story that's a staff pick was not boosted. Medium posted that they have a list of staff picks for Women's History month. So I posted a comment saying I have a whole publication full of women's history and linked to it. They included a couple of stories from my History of Women publication, but mine was not boosted. Can't answer for the other, though I doubt based on looking in publication stats.
And yes, I do wonder if editors will be somewhat biased. I can see why they tried that route, though. Writers are less likely to hound editors than they were to hound Medium staff. My thought it they don't want to fall out of an editor's good graces, but had no problem hammering Medium staff for curation. I guess we'll see how it works. Not holding my breath, though.
Thanks for answering my question!
You're very welcome. :)
Why wouldn't editors boost articles from their own publication. They read them & nurtured them? It's up to Medium secret-shoppers to boost the others.
I doubt this is Stubblebine's idea. I think it is to reward editors who do tons of work on their publications. Like the editors on Illumination, who do heroic work. Being asked to write for them by the founder gave me the confidence boost I need. I'm willing to see what happens.
The potential problem I see with Illumination is that they publish pretty much everything that gets submitted. There's not a lot of internal curation going on. And while there's a lot of good writing there, there's also a lot of writing that really needed some editorial help. If they bomb Medium with all their submissions, I can see that getting overwhelming really fast.
They won't. That is why they encourage writers to start their one pubs. Tom Handy incubated there and he's got 17.5 followers. He admits he does better on Newsbreak.
I'm going to respectfully pushback a little here. I agree 110% about Illumination giving confidence to new writers--that's their north star. It's a great place to get started and receive that initial boost (no pun intended) a new writer needs to keep going.
The downside is that they'll publish just about anything, and everyone knows it. There's not a whole lot of evergreen or "boost-worthy" work being published (and if it is, it's getting buried under a blizzard of other submissions).
As for editors, the good Dr. would do well to hire 2-3 people to do the work FT. As it stands, he's profiting off of people's genuine desire to help other people. Just my .02.
I think every stupid Idea Tony Stumblebum comes up with should come out of his salary. Look on Glassdoor. Even the folks with real jobs at headquarters are tired of getting jerked around. Dude has not got a clue.
Wow, Denise. lol. I think there's some merit to Kathryn's comment that they have to deal with people constantly trying to game the system. For me, I just know I'll never have the blind optimism I used to have there. Been whacked one time too many for that. I know you have been, too. Wish there was a solution, but I don't think there is.
I’m getting dizzy!
While I appreciate that Tony no longer thinks writers have to bring an audience, he was really adamant about them doing just that a few weeks ago. Dude - we can’t trust you if you take opposite stands within weeks, at least, not unless you admit that you are experimenting and are open to see what works, or doesn’t work.
I think I may have been a beneficiary of the soft launch Boost. My story was published on January 18 and overnight had over 1K reads. I am usually lucky to get 20 reads within the first couple of days, and honestly, the majority of my stories never reach 100 reads. Over time, I’ve had a couple hit over 1K. This story is now at 1.6K reads in about 6 weeks. That amazing for me - except - the total earnings are only $2.69.
I’m excited to get to share that with a pool of editors. Right.
Unless I'm missing something, if you got a 1K reads and made $2.69, sounds like most were external reads. Makes me wonder how Medium is boosting articles?
Maybe I wasn’t boosted. I just thought maybe I was part of the beta group without knowing it due to that huge jump in reads. No, I get very few external reads. Weird, right?
I think received 2 boosts because of a title & a how-to. I got no money from it but I think it shows how much Medium fiddles with the algorithms.
And just when I was thinking of giving Medium a teeny tiny try again! The rules keep changing and I don't have the foggiest idea on how to navigate through them. I feel as if I'm so far behind now everything is written in a different language.
Linda, thank you for trying to explain what's going on over there. I'm in awe of your reporting and your reasoning, but I have to admit I don't understand any of it. Not one bit.
Does this mean I should resurrect my old publication, Indelible Ink? Is that the only way I'll get my own blog posts noticed, since blogs appear to have to be in pubs now? I don't want to edit and curate a publication. I just want to get my writing seen and maybe make enough to pay my dues each month.
Or maybe not. Maybe I should just forget the whole thing and stick to Substack, where I'm sometimes seen and where I'm really the most comfortable. I'll be watching for more of your pieces on Medium, Linda, and maybe someday I'll begin to understand. LOL.
I applied for this a week ago since I'm an editor of a pub on Medium. I can see alot of issues with this. Medium will be bombarded again. But who knows, maybe it's worth trying. At least for now, Medium's the only viable place for unknown writers like me so.
"Authors shouldn’t be required to build their own audience or mailing list to share their ideas and knowledge. Often, the best writing comes from people who don’t want to be audience builders.” — Tony Stubblebine (source).
This is 180 from what Tony said a month or so ago. How does the CEO cope with these mood swings? First, we're chopped liver if we don't bring our own audience in and then, tut-tut, we'll do the heavy lifting for you with our boost program.
Reminds me of Detroit and the Big Three automakers constantly changing designs searching for the holy grail. What they did instead was constantly move away from what worked or in their case, what sold - because change got confused with innovation.
If you keep looking, up close and personal, at an elephant's butt, you'll never know what a cool pair of sunglasses would look like for them. Medium needs to step back and look at what worked in the past. My guess, is that they know what worked - for the writers, for the readers - just not for their bottom line - which is why they won't go there again. But I think that can be fixed. This platform can work for everyone - just needs a fresh pair of eyes.
I’ve long supported editing as a way to improve writing on Medium. I value all the people who have taken it upon themselves to create publications and was sorry when Medium undercut them. This might have problems, most changes do, but that’s what’s nice about Medium, it is the circle of making money. Medium changes, someone figures it out, makes some bucks, writes about it and creates a course to sell others on the approach, people sign up, copy and start making money, then the field gets saturated and Medium changes…. Rinse repeat.
‘No erotica…’
On the old Medium, I didn’t go looking for erotica but it came looking for me and I was soon offered lots of it. Some of it wasn’t bad!
‘No writing about Medium…’
There is Substack for that. Mr Stubblestubble wouldn’t want to read feedback and advice on Medium.
Right? Where else? Sigh