Some Things I Learned Since Writing for Medium

Little lessons here and there — some good and some plain confusing

I published my first article on Medium in October 2020 and then was accepted into a couple of publications a few months later. Overall, I have enjoyed, and continue to enjoy, the process and the platform. Writing in general, and for Medium in specific has given me many hours of enjoyment and a creative outlet which, along with much reading of Medium articles, has made the last seven months a lot better for me.

I have “met” some amazing writers here, some whose ability humbles me. I won’t mention names, for fear of offending by omitting someone — but you know who you are.

But there have been a few little things that have so far baffled me in this experience, and I thought I’d mention them.

One is the recommendation to use Grammarly. Now, I know my writing style is not as perfect as it can be, and being both a lawyer and a student of history, it can be sometimes archaic. I work on that. So when I was told (for an article submitted to Illumination) that I should use Grammarly, I downloaded the free Firefox version. I ultimately concluded that “Hey, maybe it’s a good idea.”

That version of Grammarly works everywhere except on Medium. I mentioned this in an article, and someone highlighted and clapped for the comment, so it appears I am not the only one with this issue. I would like to hear from others on this, as (now I’ve gotten accustomed to Grammarly everywhere else) I think it can help me on Medium. Maybe free versions don’t work on Medium?

A real, and maybe costly lesson: if you are fortunate enough to have an article plucked out of the Medium universe and have it placed on the main wall (where everyone gets to see it first thing), do not even think of editing the darned thing, no matter how iffy you feel about it. Since I’ve been writing for Medium, I’ve had exactly one article so plucked and posted. I made the mistake of looking it over and correcting a couple of typos. Bad idea. The article disappeared from the wall, never to be seen there again.

Finally, there is the “duplicate content” guideline. I have been directed to the Medium duplicate content guideline only once. The guideline states three very specific no-nos:

• Taking a published story to unlisted, then re-publishing the same content into a new post
• Republishing a duplicate version of an existing Medium story on Medium
• Cross-posting stories in publications. If your story is already included in a publication, you may not publish another instance of the same story to include in another publication.

Here’s my issue: this direction to the guideline was in response to an article published on Medium and immediately submitted to Illumination on February 22nd (Words from on High — Yes they Still Matter) — which was not accepted.

That article was a brand new one that did not fall into any of the three categories listed above. What it did was reference an earlier article of mine published on Medium (under no publication) on November 1, 2020 (Why Words Really Do Matter if You’re a King or Wannabe King); and for ease of reference, I provided a link to the earlier article in the latter one, as it was on the same general topic of how words matter.

So, I was told that the new article would remain as posted on Medium, but would not appear in Illumination because… I must see the Medium guideline.

Noting several articles on Medium where an author referenced an earlier work and provided a link to it, I communicated with Medium — learning that my later article did not run afoul of the guideline from their perspective; but suggested that Illumination might have different standards.

This is where the confusion really builds, and I’m hoping someone has some wisdom to offer here. The only guideline cited was the general Medium one on duplicate content quoted above, which I have now read maybe 10 times. I see nothing to show that Article Z, by mentioning a related but different earlier article (Article A) and providing a link to it, violates the guideline.

So, maybe this is just another instance of the several down-sides to being a lawyer, with a tendency to a too-literal interpretation of rules. Or maybe I’m simply not as bright as I thought I was. I’m pretty sure the latter idea would find some support from some folks in my circle.

Anyway, I’m not complaining — I’m just wondering.

Be well, stay healthy — and if you have some input, don’t be bashful. I like to understand things, especially when they seem beyond my understanding.