Navigating the Challenges of Writing on Medium in 2024

Chapter 1: Disillusionment with Medium's Boost System

In a recent Substack entry, Dr. Mehmet Yildiz, the founder of Illumination, expressed concerns regarding the evolving landscape of Medium, stating it no longer offers the lucrative opportunities it once did. Historically, some writers have enjoyed significant financial success on the platform, but even stories that achieve viral or boosted status are seeing diminishing returns today.

Dr. Mehmet notes that while a few writers previously managed to leave their jobs for a full-time writing career on Medium, such instances are now exceedingly rare. The current environment does not provide sufficient financial incentives for most writers to consider transitioning to a writing career.

He emphasizes that he doesn't intend to dishearten writers but rather to clarify that Medium should be seen primarily as a venue for sharing ideas and connecting with other writers, rather than as a reliable source of income or a viable career path.

In his own experience, Dr. Mehmet has noticed a decline in the performance of his articles. Some of his pieces are seemingly not reaching audiences due to algorithmic changes, leading him to speculate that he might be blacklisted. The lack of transparency regarding story impressions further complicates the situation; writers cannot accurately gauge how their work is being received.

The video titled "Harris-Walz 2024: DNC Chair Jaime Harrison Reflects on Historic Nomination | Amanpour and Company" discusses the implications of significant changes in political nominations, paralleling the shifts many writers are experiencing on Medium.

Chapter 1.1: The Impact of Algorithm Changes

The recent changes in Medium's algorithm seem to have balanced the payment structure, aiming to provide equitable compensation for writers with smaller followings. Dr. Mehmet, who boasts over 100,000 followers, finds himself receiving a similar level of attention as lesser-known writers.

This shift appears to promote a broader range of stories, focusing on topics that engage readers rather than solely those from popular writers. I theorize this new approach allows writers with modest followings to attain exposure comparable to those with larger audiences. However, this may come as a disappointment to those who have invested years in building their followings, as they may now see fewer reads and reduced earnings.

If this theory holds true, it indicates a fairer platform for all writers, yet it poses challenges for those accustomed to higher earnings. Dr. Mehmet highlights that many quality pieces are being overlooked by the boost program, including one of his own, which earned a mere 77 cents.

Chapter 1.2: The Evolving Nature of Boosting

Interestingly, Dr. Mehmet serves as a boost nominator, lending weight to his observations about the changing landscape. If someone in his position feels disillusioned, it suggests that many writers are grappling with similar frustrations regarding the shifting criteria for story promotion.

For instance, British historian John Welford previously thrived on Medium with 29 boosts for his historical narratives, but now finds himself struggling to gain traction after the system's transformation. There’s a lingering hope that the tides may turn once more, as Medium's dynamics are known for their volatility.

I’ve encountered writers who produce well-researched content but remain dissatisfied with the lack of returns. It raises the question of whether pieces rich in facts and data are missing the personal touch that may now be essential for gaining a boost.

In the TEDx talk "Getting Stuck in the Negatives (and How to Get Unstuck)," Alison Ledgerwood discusses strategies for overcoming mental blocks, which might resonate with writers feeling disheartened by the current Medium landscape.

Chapter 2: The Ongoing Struggle for Visibility

I've had periods of success where several of my stories received boosts, but the advice to incorporate more personal anecdotes into my writing proved invaluable. However, my recent attempts to adhere to these guidelines have yielded no boosts, highlighting the unpredictable nature of the process.

Moreover, I've noticed that submissions to various boosting publications often go unreviewed by nominators. This has led me to withhold my best work from those outlets, as it seems futile to share exceptional pieces with publications where nominators don't engage with the submissions.

In retrospect, some of those stories may not have sufficiently highlighted my personal experiences, but it raises the question: how can nominators make informed decisions if they don’t actually read the pieces submitted?

This presents a significant challenge. I understand that many publications face overwhelming submission volumes, but it remains frustrating for dedicated writers. Some of these platforms are expected to showcase top-tier content, and it’s disheartening when submissions aren’t thoroughly reviewed.

While I’m still assessing whether the recent algorithm changes are beneficial or detrimental, it's clear that I haven't experienced anything close to a viral moment in quite some time!