Dear Medium Staff & Ev Williams — Specific Feedback from A Reader

Coz readers don’t write, but all writers read.

There has been a ton of chatter on the falling stats on Medium and the falling engagement levels.

Initially, it was from writers like me and others that weren’t part of the Medium all-star writing club, and so I wasn’t sure if it was a wider issue. But more recently, the same has been echoed by the real deals too — Shannon Ashley wrote this piece only 10 hours ago at the time of writing this story.

She’s got 37k people that follow her — and from what I can tell from the comments and engagement on her stories — it is quite a loyal following.

There are a ton of other all-stars that have complained about the same thing but I am not going to tag them — because I refrain from being that guy who tags a ton of stars in the hope to go viral.

This post isn’t about going viral.

I’ve tagged Medium and Ev on the title — because this is a genuine attempt at constructive, evidence-backed feedback to a platform I’ve come to really like, and that doesn’t need more complaints but actionable feedback.

So let’s get to the issue.

The “relational Medium” was a good idea, but so far bad execution

All the changes we’re talking about began with Ev’s talk about creating a more relational Medium — de-emphasizing the elusive curation, and focusing more on the genuine following, and bringing readers closer to their writers.

The goal was to value deeper relationships between readers and writers and avoid the traps of “follow-for-follow” or the “human” element of Medium curation. The move had all the right intent. But here’s why I think the execution so far has been flawed.

Here’s a snapshot from what my “suggested reads” on the Medium homepage are currently:

Here’s what’s good and bad about this:

• Good — you take a look at my reading history — based on interest and writers that I often read, or even publications I follow — and throw me a few reads that would interest me. You’re not always right, but you do a decent job — great.
• Bad — These things just don’t change. I often read these stories and yet they sit on my homepage. On my phone, you show me a reading list and when I read one you simply put a “checkmark” next to it telling me I’ve read it. Did you just assume I only want to read a total of 4 pieces a day? Shouldn’t you offer me the next list of stories I might like? Shouldn’t you remove the first list if I saw it, but didn’t choose to read it? Maybe you were wrong, and that’s OK, but move on to the next bit so I get more content and the writers get to showcase more? I only follow 150 people, and about 20 publications, am sure you’ve still got more to offer?

Here’s the other “bigger” problem.

I only have 700 followers on Medium, and get 50–100 views on an average on my stories — maybe that’s OK. Shannon on the other hand has 37k — very loyal followers. How do you then justify the fact that she can manage barely hundreds of views on her best stories?

Clearly, the “relational” piece isn’t working. And I am not the only one complaining. I’ve had to pay readers who write ZILCH on the platform also complaining to their beloved writers that they just don’t see their stories anymore.

The distribution algorithm pushes the SAME stories, forever.

I am an editor and writer on Illumination — which means I read a ton of stories from the publication daily.

Your platform works in such a way that it shows three LUCKY stories at the bottom as suggested reads from the same publication, every time I read something on that pub. Fair enough — an opportunity for “curated” work to shine.

But the problem — a big one. Take a look at the below.

I’ve been seeing these SAME three stories for the past week or more. I’ve read two, I’ve ignored one. But do you get the hint?

I am ready to move on to the next three stories that you think are worth showcasing. WHY is your algorithm so damn static that it will continue to just showcase these 3 stories? Illumination has over 8,000 writers and hundreds of stories published every day, many many of which are curated, and hence fit the bill for being “distributed” by your algorithm.

Why, then, should I only see these three stories for eternity?

1. It is unfair to the reader to keep seeing the same stories from an algorithm that’s supposed to help him read more relevant content.
2. It is more unfair to the writers because only three lucky ones continue to get their work showcased forever, the others rot in hell.
3. I asked a friend — Ikram Al Mouaswas — she had the same three stories. What happened to customize everyone’s reads for their interests? Is your tech so bad you’re going to keep a static list of stories for each publication that you market forever?

Curation now comes aplenty but means nothing anymore

Well, you sure de-emphasized curation — but we all know it matters because it keeps our content “alive” longer in the system.

And hey, there’s good news. We’ve all seen a spike in the number of curated stories.

But the views? Worse than non-curated stories from the pre-algorithm change days. I’ve had close to a 100% curation rate but I feel it is of no use. I know it helps keep those stories alive in the system — but for what?

I know I am also risking going on the so-called “Naughty list” for calling this out — and complaining about my high curation rate, but I trust you enough that I believe what needs to be said must be said, even if it risks my own future as a writer on Medium.

Curation is important to all of us — it is a sort of validation that our writing is meeting the criteria of the platform we write for, and it is worthy of reaching more people. But please, don’t do it for the sake of it — what is your “distribution” all about anymore? Fix it, so it can again mean something.

We don’t care just for the money, we all saw what happened to News Break

I am sure you were worried about your big competitor that came up in no time — News Break. It offered everyone a big fat $1000 carrot, and you were scared — you may not admit it but you were.

But those of us who knew our sh*t, also knew there’s no free cup of tea.

And News Break complied sooner than I expected. The free $1,000 doesn’t exist anymore, and the quality of readers and engagement and content is so bad, Medium shouldn’t need to worry a tiny bit.

Let’s not focus on changing because an empty threat is out there, but lets at least get our own house in order.

Writers are complaining, readers are complaining, but we’re all sticking around — at least some of us are. But we’re sticking around because somewhere we hope that like every other time, you’ll fix what’s broken, and give us what we deserve. Amazing content for the readers, and a democratic and fair platform for the writers.

But are you listening? Are you going to do justice to our hope, or will we all die a slow death? We’ll see, and I hope I’ll get to write a follow-up to this saying our faith was answered.

Because I said this before, and I’ll say this again, if this is temporary — this might be the best time to stick around on Medium to gain in the longer run.