Content Strategy

It’s Not the Quality that Causes Issues with Views.

It might be the misconfigured distribution system in the blind spot of the operators.

Brief Response to “The Unintended Consequences of Medium Changes” by Malky McEwan

Hi Malky,

I read your excellent story that touches on critical points on this platform. Since my thoughts would be long for a comment, I decided to blog it and link it to your story as a reference to enhance the meaning of your great post.

Your perspectives reflect reality. I admire your humor in articulating difficult points. I believe Medium is facing another transition phase. Therefore, I keep my optimism and support the platform to thrive again.

Unfortunately, insightful articles that might add value to society are not recognized by the algorithm; hence they gain hardly any views. Yet, sensational and alarming news stories go viral, getting thousands of views.

I don’t believe the quality is the major problem for the lack of visibility. However, reading times can be. We can’t criticize a writer who gets 20 views and 15 reads for lack of quality. But we can if they receive 100K views and only ten reads due to click bait titles.

Readers seem to be offered low-impact stories in general, so they have no chance to see high-quality and original content buried under the distributed content (favored by the platform algorithm or human curators) from my systematic observations.

This broken distribution system requires urgent fixing. Unless Medium address this issue as priority #1, the growth and performance of the platform will sadly decline. We will lose not only excellent writers but also cause discerning readers to unsubscribe and go to competitor services.

For example, I follow many writers from different domains, but my feed is full of stories about Medium earning, how to get rich quickly, and top websites to join.

More specifically, in the last ten days, the “more from Medium” section in my profile only features five sensational articles that add no value to society. I am also concerned that the same stories stay in the section for ten days. I feel as if I am forced to read them. Hopefully, it is a simple glitch that can easily be fixed.

I checked the recommended stories by Medium and couldn’t find much value. I got disappointed they were chosen by Medium compared to many better ones in the same topics. Obviously, Medium curated them; therefore, they gained orders of magnitude views. It is unlikely for a story not distributed to hit this section.

I know they got many views as one of them from my publication. Not surprisingly, it was a viral story with over 70K views. The writer did a great job, and I don’t criticize the story. He deserves recognition.

However, a similar story written by a Ph.D. with an engaging style and great takeaways got only 20 views. Obviously, Medium did not notice and distribute the high-impact and valuable story to a broader audience.

Stories of both writers in this example need visibility, but one getting thousands and another only a handful of views is not fair and not sustainable to keep high-quality writers on this platform.

There is a dichotomy between views for the same quality stories. So my point is quality is not the main factor for the visibility of great stories perceived and used as a scapegoat recently.

I know readers can configure their options, but as a reader, the Medium algorithm offers me stories that bring no value to me and always offer sensational ones chosen by algorithms or curators (not sure who distributes them, though).

As an avid reader, I am not happy with what Medium chooses in general, especially the biased staff picks which do not reflect the reality of Medium content.

But as a content consumer, I know how to find the right content for my needs, and I am grateful for the richness of the platform for it.

But not many readers might have this capability and think that Medium content is only what staff picks and what algorithm distributes. There is a treasure trove on Medium that brings great value for a $5 subscription fee.

I hope the new leadership team addresses the distribution issues and revives this great platform again before it gets too late.

I noticed that my previously curated articles (chosen for further distribution) now stopped receiving views. It is a new concern to me that I started analyzing. I will cover it in another post.

Like you, I documented my perspectives on the recent changes affecting thousands of writers. We have a lot in common in our observations. Your findings align with mine.

My first story reflected on the issues, and the second one shows some improvements recently. I hope my second good news story does not disappoint us.

Here are the links to the stories for interested readers as they reflect my methodical observations of the platform.

Ironically the first story gained at least ten times more views than the second story, which gives the good news.

Disappointingly, a story I wrote about an essential therapy for clinical depression also got ten times fewer views than my feelings about Medium.

So out of millions of readers on Medium, only around 100 readers had a chance to see this high-impact story for society. It received no views in the last few days after I posted on social media and shared it with a few interested readers.

So my point is the algorithm did not create any awareness for this story.

Most likely algorithm blacklisted the story when it detected the term “depression” in the headline, which is a taboo topic on content management platforms as it is an abused subject.

If a human curator sees this story and reads the comments by readers, they could have distributed it to a broader audience. This is only one example out of hundreds of disadvantaged content on Medium.

So you are spot on in your observation on this point about writers writing about Medium to get attention from readers. These simple stats comparisons tell me a lot about the algorithm’s configuration. My second story is not lower quality than my first, but there is a dichotomy in views between the two.

Gamification of the platform is an issue that I’d like to write about soon. It is also close to my heart as some writers abuse the platform.

Sadly, Medium unintentionally caused this issue. For example, using followers as a criterion to become a partner with Medium caused severe concerns for the platform stakeholders. Desperate writers tried tricks that did not align with the value of this great platform to become a partner.

Thank you for the opportunity to inspire me to share my thoughts, Malky McEwan. I appreciate mentioning the outstanding story of one of my favorite writers (Linda Caroll) that I read with fascination. I link it as a reference for interested readers.

I also enjoyed an excellent perspective from Kristina Segarra, who provided solid advice to writers who are affected by the recent changes.

Thank you all for reading my perspectives. I wish you a healthy and happy life.

I publish my lifestyle, health, and well-being stories on EUPHORIA. My focus is on metabolic, cellular, mitochondrial, and mental health. Here is my collection of Insightful Life Lessons from Personal Stories.

You might join my six publications on Medium as a writer by sending a request via this link. More than 16,000 writers contribute to my publications with inspiring content for readers of this platform. You might find more information about my professional background.