Some Thoughts On Medium's New "Boost" Guidelines From The Eyes Of An Editor

Being both a writer and a publication editor come with different perspectives.

woman with trophy photo from pexels

Happy Friday…

I’ve been writing about Medium a lot lately. In the long haul, I write about writing and writers, from author websites to book, design and writing platforms. But I’ve been writing about Medium a lot (lately) because they’re in upheaval. Again.

A lot of writers are mad at Medium. It’s easy to blame Tony because he’s the one in charge now. But the problems started before Ev left. Views took a nosedive for a lot of people, me included. Writers were mad. Since then, there’s been a lot of changes.

Most recently, Medium introduced a new “boost” program.

It’s like the old days of curation, except a handful of publication editors are the new curators instead of Medium staff. Plus, it’s two level, which is also new. The editor/curators will suggest stories. Medium staff get to say yes or no.

The two level structure should take care of some of the abuses that happened with the old curation system. What happened is that writers were basically harassing the staff when they didn’t get curated. Emailing repeatedly to ask to be curated.

That’s not going to happen now because (a) no one knows who the new curators are, and (b) if a curator suggests a story that doesn’t meet the guidelines, Medium staff will just reject the suggestion. Problem solved.

I want to talk about the boost criteria, but first, let’s talk being a publication editor, for a minute…

I run two publications on Medium. History of Women and The Book Café.

Both of them have issues that, at first, seem unique to the publication.

At The Book Café, people submit lazy book reviews cobbled together from text on Amazon and GoodReads and sprinkle them with Amazon affiliate links. It’s not about the book review. They’re just hoping to catch people’s eye with the hot title and get that Amazon cookie set hoping for some sweet Amazon commissions.

Yes, there’s great book reviews. I am so impressed with how many actual book people I’ve found through that pub. But there’s a lot of low quality submissions, too.

How handy of me to make a publication that fits their affiliate strategy so well. #sarcasm

My editors catch some of it, but it’s a constant game of whack-a-mole to go find and delete the crap that gets past the editors. Here’s the thing — a person who loves books and reading can tell if someone actually read a book and enjoyed it.

On History of Women, the problem is that submissions often sound like Wikipedia. The submission guide clearly says I’m looking for storytelling. Take the facts, make a compelling story out of them. It gives examples of stories that did really well.

But still, no matter how much I clarify the submission guide, I get submissions that don’t fit the tone of the publication. Because it’s not just topic. It’s tone, too.

I’ve even had people submit posts that are not the story or history of any woman. Why? I have no idea. I wish I did. One person said I know this doesn’t fit the pub, but I get great views here, can you make an exception? (No. Sorry. I can’t.)

On the surface, they seem like different problems. But in reality, they are the same problem. Submitting without understanding or following the submission guide.

It’s really hard to be on the admin end of that.

It sucks to reject people.

I don’t ever want to be the person who crushes someone’s dreams.

It sucks even more when they get angry and tear a strip off me. That happens, too. One writer said “Fine, then just delete me” and refused to edit or remove her story. No one needs that attitude if they’re getting paid, much less if they aren’t.

I just want to create something people love reading. You know?

Is that so bad?

Now let’s talk about Medium’s submission guide…

Medium posted a new distribution guide on February 21, 2023.

It’s pretty simple. There’s 5 primary bullet points listing what they want and a very long list of what does NOT quality for distribution.

The “what doesn’t qualify” list is bigger than the list of what they’re looking for. No meta posts, no erotica, no disparaging posts, no link farms, no rebuttals, no AI without disclosure and absolutely no unsubstantiated claims. And more.

Here’s what they are looking for.

1. Is it constructive? (ie: Is there a takeaway for the reader?)

2. Is it original? (ie: Does it bring a fresh perspective?)

3. Is there relevant experience? (ie industry cred. or well researched)

4. Is the story well-crafted? (ie: quality writing, good title, etc)

5. Does it feel memorable? (ie; does it stick in your head)

They have a full paragraph for every point, which you can read here.

When I read the full page a couple of times, here’s what it brought to mind. I used to write for print magazines, forever ago. It felt like that’s the quality they are striving to find. They want quality writing on a writing site. Go figure.

Like, if it’s a business article, would a business magazine publish it? If it’s an article about parenting, would a parenting magazine print it? If it’s historical, would National Geographic or History Today print it?

I can’t speak for Medium, but that’s how the boost guide reads to me.

Which is not to say a story can’t be funny, or snarky or loaded with personality, but the overarching question is — is it well crafted? To me, that’s the big one.

Especially the well-crafted part.

So many submissions I get struggle with the same things. Weak titles, weak openings. Lack of citations. How do you say something is a fact without citing it? How do you submit a story with a one word title. Dora. Like, wtf?

Now, all of that said — there are excellent writers who are NOT getting the exposure they should. I know that. So do you. We all know that. It’s a damn shame. And I hope Medium doesn’t crush their hopes and dreams and aspirations.

I truly hope the boost program finds those writers and elevates their work. I hope Medium gets it right and give those writers the exposure they should be getting.

But here’s all I know.

Speaking as a publication editor, when I read that list of the boost criteria, I couldn’t help but think that if every writer followed that guide, I’d have a lot less problems with rejection at my own publications.

Know what I mean? And I don’t know the answer to that.

Any thoughts?

“Writing is hard work. A clear sentence is no accident. Very few sentences come out right
the first time, or even the third time. Remember this in moments of despair.
If you find that writing is hard, it’s because it is hard.”
― William Zinsser, On Writing Well

New On Medium…

• Wow. I Just Tested A “Ghost” AI That Can Write Like Famous Dead Authors

• 10 ChatGPT Prompts That Can Make You A More Compelling Writer

• You Know That “Dying” Woman Who Ran Away? I Read The Book

---

If you made it down here, scroll down a bit more and click the heart, okay? Doesn’t cost a penny and makes me feel like my writing is appreciated!

Thanks and have a great weekend. 😊

xo
Linda