Summary

The author reflects on the anomaly of a Medium writer, XYZ, whose poorly written follow-up story contrasts sharply with a well-crafted, recently boosted story, raising questions about the consistency of quality and the integrity of the boosting process.

Abstract

The author discusses the perplexing situation where a Medium writer, referred to as XYZ, received a story boost for a piece that, while engaging, contained several errors and was inconsistent with XYZ's subsequent follow-up story. The follow-up story, which the author analyzed in detail, was riddled with capitalization errors, punctuation mistakes, run-on sentences, and disorganized content, leading to speculation about the writer's command of English or their status as a new writer. The stark difference in quality between the boosted story and the follow-up prompted the author to question how the boosted story met the platform's criteria for being well-crafted. The author also ponders whether the boosted material might have been plagiarized or if XYZ's account is shared among multiple authors. Despite these concerns, the author acknowledges the evolving nature of Medium's boost program and refrains from making definitive accusations without complete information.

Opinions

The author believes that the follow-up story by XYZ is of significantly lower quality than the boosted story, with numerous writing errors.
There is a suspicion that the boosted story may not be the original work of XYZ, hinting at the possibility of plagiarism.
The author suggests that the inconsistency in writing quality could be due to XYZ being a new writer or not a native English speaker.
The author entertains the idea that XYZ's Medium account might be a shared one, with multiple authors writing under the same name, which they consider potentially unethical.
Despite the concerns raised, the author recognizes that the boost program is subject to human error and is a work in progress, open to improvements.
The author is cautious about drawing firm conclusions, emphasizing the importance of not falsely accusing a writer who could be entirely legitimate and deserving of the boost.

IT’LL BE FASCINATING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

This May, MAY, MAY! be the Wildest Boost-Related Thing I’ve Seen

Notice I’m emphasizing the May, MAY, MAY!

I can’t prove anything with my musings, but I’m going to tell my story and you can decide, or at least think about, how wild/crazy/interesting/thought-provoking (or not) this is.

Extreme pains have been taken to NOT call out the writer or his stories.

Like lots of writers, author XYZ, had a recent story boosted.

And, like a lot of writers, myself included, author XYZ wrote a follow-up story about the experience of being boosted.

XYZ’s follow-up story — details and observations

I got tagged in the follow-up story.

I read the follow-up story, repeatedly and carefully.

The follow-up story content is strictly garden variety material.

There’s a screenshot of Medium’s congratulatory note.
Writer XYZ expresses his joy about being boosted.
There are a couple of self-help type tips for other writers.
A “thank you” is included along with a modest tag cloud.

Again, standard issue stuff.

What’s not standard issue is the following:

In the title/subtitle area there are two capitalization errors and a punctuation error. (Note that Medium does not have rules about formatting titles and subtitles, in spite of the fact that many writers think they do, so XYZ may be simply “going rogue”.)
More striking still, the follow-up story is simply a series of poorly organized, minimally-related, thoughts. The material does not flow.
Inappropriate and unnecessary caps are sprinkled throughout the story’s body.
There are run-on sentences.
Most of the material is awkward at best and not well written at worst.

In short, the follow-up story reads like marginal unedited work possibly from someone — perhaps someone trying hard but ultimately not succeeding — who is not a native English speaker.

It is also entirely possible that XYZ is simply a new writer working to improve his craft.

But, how does a story from this writer, XYZ, get boosted?

So, I turned to the boosted story.

XYZ’s boosted story — details and observations

The boosted story title is also incorrectly capitalized. (Again, perhaps XYZ — and the pub editor — is/are going rogue. I understand going rogue and applaud it if that’s what’s happening here.)
More to the point, the title is incorrectly constructed and makes no sense.
Within the body of the story I detected three typos or word omissions, one word used incorrectly, and a run-on sentence. This in a pub-published story with editors who carefully review stories and refer them to the boost program.
What is most notable however is the story arc. The boosted story flows and is captivating.

What are my takeaways?

1️⃣ One can characterize the five general boost criteria with a variety of descriptors, but: enriching, original, expert, well-crafted and impactful would seem to sum them up reasonably well.

So how is it that a pub-published piece, presumably edited, but containing many mistakes, would pass the “well-crafted” test and qualify for boosted status?

2️⃣ How is it possible that within a two-week span the same writer wrote a wonderfully wrought flowing story THEN followed it up shortly thereafter with an error-filled disjointed extended thank you note?

I almost hesitate to think this, but are these two stories the work of the same writer? Worse thought still, did this writer lift his boosted material from another source and claim it as original?

3️⃣ Everyone is entitled to a rough writing patch. I’ve had them, often, to the point where I cringe mightily when reading some of my old stuff.

But, I thought to read one of XYZ’s recent pinned stories for comparison’s sake. They too do not in any manner measure up to the quality of the boosted story.

I fully realize I’m working with incomplete information, hence my caution at drawing firm conclusions and my unwillingness to “call out” a Medium writer who may be completely legitimate, blameless and worthy of the boost he received.

I also fully realize that errors can and do happen even in carefully written, edited and reviewed literature.

Further, I know that the boost program is evolving and improving.

Finally, it was pointed out to me that perhaps XYZ’s account is a shared one, with two or more authors, all writing under the same name. This seems shady somehow, unethical perhaps, but I can’t recall seeing that it’s forbidden.

Tagging Buster Benson, Tony Stubblebine, and Ariel Meadow Stallings because they may be interested in my musings.

I’d also welcome input from Kristina God and Robin Wilding 💎.