Getting boosted on Medium seems to be for some people only, not for all. I'm happy for you and the others who can do that, but also a bit sad about that abstract idea of "quality writing" that is supposed to be behind the boosting. Quite a lot of boosted articles are not very well written, while quite many excellent articles are not getting boosted. That's one for that lack of predictability you talk about.
I also think that Medium has changed a lot - especially, as you mention, there has been a drop in engagement. Like if fewer people are being notified about a new post, or perhaps they are just not the right people - the algorithm may not pick the likely readers as well as before.
One more about Medium: The politeness that caused people to read posts of their connections on the platform, at least some of them, and then also to interact with claps, highlighting and comments, seems to have gone. Maybe new members are not used to it, or the polite people have left the platform, but I see more non-interacting viewers than before. This, in turn, ruins the algorithm-based mechanism for calculating the earnings that with its complex construction is built on the idea that a lot of interaction is proof of value and, hence, should be rewarded with some more money.
My view on the two platforms, apart from Medium being broken, is that it was nice and easy to start as a new writer on Medium, getting a lot of support from the fellow writers and readers there, while it became more difficult to advance from that starting point. But on Substack, the beginning might be a bit more heavy (especially on Notes), however, everybody on Substack claims that it will accelerate after a while.
So, Medium is like the sport called tractor pulling - everything gets more and more heavy until it stops completely, while Substack is more like farming, where you saw and harvest, your animals breed and you accumulate more and more grain, more and more animals, more and more activity and wealth.
Important about Medium is that there has been, over the years, several major revisions of how it works. Each time the hitherto winners complain about their profits being reduced. I think that this is very much in line with what Cory Doctorow likes to describe as "enshittification" - a deliberate strategy where first all users, then some influencers, and finally only advertisers or other partners are being benefited by the platform. Medium is further ahead in this strategy than Substack but there is a significant risk that Substack will continue along that same path; follow the same strategy.
Both platforms do allow for publishing almost anything, but both of them are also difficult to make a living from. Writing for writers and providing courses and similar that radiates value for the money is probably the easiest way forward on Substack, I agree on that. Another seems to be journalistic contents taylored for a US audience - probably requiring some credibility from that sphere brought in from elsewhere. I have not yet seen creative writers or other artists among the big earners here, but then again, I haven't looked and they may exist.
Dear Jorgen, your comment is impressive. You can publish it as a separate post if you haven’t already :) Thank you for the additional clarification. It would be great for people to read it, so I restacked it. Stay well!
Thank you - your article is inspiring :) My comment can just live here, as I think I have written enough already about Medium. On Medium, as you point out, that topic isn't welcome, and here on Substack, I prefer to focus on the good things in life - they are needed as a counterweight to all the negative press stories we are bombarded with. If Medium tightens up and becomes a nice place again, I will be happy to write about that :)
Agreed that, for now at least, the best way to find one’s “tribe” of readers and fellow creators is to participate on both Medium and Substack.
I sometimes wonder how I would do on medium but I’m intimidated.
Thanks for typing all of this up. I learned a thing or two here that I hadn’t learned on some similar articles. Also, love your photography!
I understand. If I weren't already on Medium, I probably wouldn't start with it now.
Getting boosted on Medium seems to be for some people only, not for all. I'm happy for you and the others who can do that, but also a bit sad about that abstract idea of "quality writing" that is supposed to be behind the boosting. Quite a lot of boosted articles are not very well written, while quite many excellent articles are not getting boosted. That's one for that lack of predictability you talk about.
I also think that Medium has changed a lot - especially, as you mention, there has been a drop in engagement. Like if fewer people are being notified about a new post, or perhaps they are just not the right people - the algorithm may not pick the likely readers as well as before.
One more about Medium: The politeness that caused people to read posts of their connections on the platform, at least some of them, and then also to interact with claps, highlighting and comments, seems to have gone. Maybe new members are not used to it, or the polite people have left the platform, but I see more non-interacting viewers than before. This, in turn, ruins the algorithm-based mechanism for calculating the earnings that with its complex construction is built on the idea that a lot of interaction is proof of value and, hence, should be rewarded with some more money.
My view on the two platforms, apart from Medium being broken, is that it was nice and easy to start as a new writer on Medium, getting a lot of support from the fellow writers and readers there, while it became more difficult to advance from that starting point. But on Substack, the beginning might be a bit more heavy (especially on Notes), however, everybody on Substack claims that it will accelerate after a while.
So, Medium is like the sport called tractor pulling - everything gets more and more heavy until it stops completely, while Substack is more like farming, where you saw and harvest, your animals breed and you accumulate more and more grain, more and more animals, more and more activity and wealth.
Important about Medium is that there has been, over the years, several major revisions of how it works. Each time the hitherto winners complain about their profits being reduced. I think that this is very much in line with what Cory Doctorow likes to describe as "enshittification" - a deliberate strategy where first all users, then some influencers, and finally only advertisers or other partners are being benefited by the platform. Medium is further ahead in this strategy than Substack but there is a significant risk that Substack will continue along that same path; follow the same strategy.
Both platforms do allow for publishing almost anything, but both of them are also difficult to make a living from. Writing for writers and providing courses and similar that radiates value for the money is probably the easiest way forward on Substack, I agree on that. Another seems to be journalistic contents taylored for a US audience - probably requiring some credibility from that sphere brought in from elsewhere. I have not yet seen creative writers or other artists among the big earners here, but then again, I haven't looked and they may exist.
Dear Jorgen, your comment is impressive. You can publish it as a separate post if you haven’t already :) Thank you for the additional clarification. It would be great for people to read it, so I restacked it. Stay well!
Thank you - your article is inspiring :) My comment can just live here, as I think I have written enough already about Medium. On Medium, as you point out, that topic isn't welcome, and here on Substack, I prefer to focus on the good things in life - they are needed as a counterweight to all the negative press stories we are bombarded with. If Medium tightens up and becomes a nice place again, I will be happy to write about that :)
Interesting analogies, Jorgen!